No, not quite. Here's the text in context.
"But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.' For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds." (Matt 11:16-19)"There," you say, "it really is in there." Yes ... and no. The text is Jesus complaining about the people. He says they're not paying attention. He says they're "like children" who complain about John for not eating or drinking and they complain about Jesus for eating and drinking. They're like kids who can't be satisfied.
Now, I know a lot of Christians agree with the popular concept that Jesus was a friend of sinners and they'll point you right over to this verse to say so. I'm saying that this is not the place to go. Consider, first, context. He is not praising "this generation." They did not get it right. Notice, second, that they claimed John "came neither eating nor drinking" and that "He has a demon." Do we agree? More importantly, does Jesus agree? I think it's clear He does not. Then look, thirdly, at what they said about Him. They make three claims -- a glutton, a drunkard, and a friend of sinners. If we are going to accept out of hand that Jesus is here saying that He was a friend of sinners, then we would also need to accept that He was admitting to being a glutton and a drunkard. I would say that quite clearly this is not the case. Since the language doesn't offer a switch -- "These two aren't true, but that one is" -- I don't see how we can think that Jesus was agreeing here that He was the friend of sinners. I think it is abundantly clear that He was saying that, no, John didn't have a demon and neither were their characterizations of the Son of God accurate. (Note: the next verse says, "Then He began to denounce the cities where most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent." (Matt 11:20) Jesus was not agreeing that He was a glutton, a drunkard, or a friend of sinners.)
What about the underlying principle? Can we safely assume that Jesus was friendly, warm, nonjudgmental, paying no attention to the sin of the sinners He was with? I don't see how. We do know that He spent time with sinners. That's not in question. But to assume, then, that He embraced their sin doesn't follow. Remember, His first message was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17) And He kept that up (e.g., Luke 13:1-5) When asked about why He spent time with sinners, He didn't say, "Because they're so cool and I love 'em dearly." He said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." (Matt 9:11-13) "They're sick" is not exactly, "They're just fine; stop being so judgmental and intolerant."
I don't think that either the text in question or the entire story of Christ will support the notion that Jesus had no opinion regarding the sin of the people with whom He spent time or that He admitted to the phrase, He was the friend of sinners. On the other hand, I think it is indisputable that He was the friend of sinners. Unfortunately, He wasn't the kind of friend that most people think of. He wasn't all warm and fuzzy all the time. "I love ya, man." No, He was the kind of friend that sought the best for those with whom He spent time, even if that was corrective and even judgmental. He didn't love the sinner and the sin. His love required repentance because that was the best thing for the sinner. He did spend time with them. He also thought they were sick. And He wanted them to get "treatment" for that. And I think we are remiss as Christians if we don't follow His example.
No comments:
Post a Comment