Was Jesus Indignant or Compassionate?

[Salamander]

Rip:Now you've crossed the line ( not that you haven't before).So those scholars who would translate the wording in question to 'indignant' are heretics, and this is sponsored by Satan?!You sound more and more like Skypair, just in a different forum.

Stalking me again, huh?

OK, you tell me, does God ever upbraid, make a fool of, anyone for their lack of wisdom?:godisgood:

The indignation could not have been towards the leper, else the word of God is in controversy here when compared to other portions. But that is the intent of some to cause some to think there is some sort of controversy or discrepency in the word of God/ Word of God/ The Bible/ the Bible.

 

[HankD]

Now that I've had my fun, please note that this thread is strictly about Mark 1:41, and not asking if Jesus was ever indignant.

Well brother JJ , of course you can set the guidelines, after all, it is your post.

First "however": You yourself made a determination of that possibility in the opening post thereby opening that door to others:

And I just can't imagine Jesus being indignant because He was politely and desperately asked to heal someone!

Second "However": By not allowing "if Jesus was ever indignant" as an element of the determination of a variant might cause those of us whose biblical scholarship include Burgon's Seven Tests of Truth to take note that you have denied us the scholarship of two of those seven:


1) Antiquity, or Primitiveness
2) Consent of Witnesses, or Number
3) Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity
4) Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight
5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition
6) Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context
7) Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness

Personally, I believe that these two are indispensible in the final determination of a variant especially for translation purposes.


HankD

 

[John of Japan]

Well brother JJ , of course you can set the guidelines, after all, it is your post.

First "however": You yourself made a determination of that possibility in the opening post thereby opening that door to others:


Second "However": By not allowing "if Jesus was ever indignant" as an element of the determination of a variant might cause those of us whose biblical scholarship include Burgon's Seven Tests of Truth to take note that you have denied us the scholarship of two of those seven:


1) Antiquity, or Primitiveness
2) Consent of Witnesses, or Number
3) Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity
4) Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight
5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition
6) Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context
7) Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness

Personally, I believe that these two are indispensible in the final determination of a variant especially for translation purposes.


HankD

I'm not sure I see your point here. As per (6) there is no place in the context of ch. 1 where Jesus is angry. And He doesn't even get angry in ch. 2 when the Pharisees viciously insult Him! And as per (7), my position is right along with that point, ergo it is unreasonable to think Jesus was angry when asked to heal someone, since nowhere else is He angry in such a case.

At any rate, I have the works of Burgon (the Sovereign Grace Trust Fund version), and the index doesn't mention Mark 1:41. But since not one single Byz/Maj manuscript has "indignant" I'm sure friend Burgon would reject the reading out of hand--unless he could find it in a few church fathers, of course!

 

[Rippon]

Stalking me again, huh?

No, I'm not in the habit of hunting salamanders.

 

[Rippon]

I Will Repeat What I Have Said Before ...

Rip:Now you've crossed the line ( not that you haven't before).So those scholars who would translate the wording in question to 'indignant' are heretics, and this is sponsored by Satan?!You sound more and more like Skypair, just in a different forum.

Please address my questions.

 

[HankD]

I'm not sure I see your point here. As per (6) there is no place in the context of ch. 1 where Jesus is angry. And He doesn't even get angry in ch. 2 when the Pharisees viciously insult Him! And as per (7), my position is right along with that point, ergo it is unreasonable to think Jesus was angry when asked to heal someone, since nowhere else is He angry in such a case.

At any rate, I have the works of Burgon (the Sovereign Grace Trust Fund version), and the index doesn't mention Mark 1:41. But since not one single Byz/Maj manuscript has "indignant" I'm sure friend Burgon would reject the reading out of hand--unless he could find it in a few church fathers, of course!

Thanks JJ, I wanted to exhaust every possibility with you.
It is evident in the context of Mark that Jesus on occassion could/would be angry:

Mark 3:1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.​

True, the immediate context of Mark 1:41 shows no evident case for anger but the remote possibility is there as often some details are not all covered in the four Gospels in the individual accounts.

More later perhaps, I have to leave for work.​

Bye for now.​

HankD​

 

[Salamander]

Please address my questions.

I'm not interested in your twisted view of this. I did answer your insinuations though.

 

[Rippon]

Deal With The Questions

So those scholars who would translate the wording in question to 'indignant' are heretics, and this is sponsored by Satan?!

Don't be so evasive Sal. What are you afraid of?

 

[Salamander]

Don't be so evasive Sal. What are you afraid of?

Excuse
me? Where in the following am I being evasive?

I
have to stand on the fact that God is only ever angry with the wicked and the religious leaders who oppress sinners, but never have I seen anywhere he was indignant towards the sinner who his only begotten died and shed his blood for them.

If Jesus was ever angry towards a sinner for their lack of wisdom, then we would have to reject James 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Seems more the wording understood as "indignant" is more akin to heresy and to the father of all lies.

It seems the words in blue are the ones you're trying your best to convolute to fit your twisted view here.

Show me just one time that Christ was ever indignant towards a helpless sinner who just so happened to be crying out for healing?

As I have already stated, and you would like to overlook, the indignation was towards the sin and those who would use any opportunity to oppress others.

Are you game? Would you like to accuse the Saviour with indignation towards the very sinners he came seeking and to save???????

 

[franklinmonroe]

... 3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other...

Is it possible that Jesus is not the "angry" party here? Does "with anger" really describe Jesus, or is the (closer) antecedent "them"? Did Jesus have anger on His countenance, or did He see Pharisees with anger in their hearts?

Notice that after asking "them" (the watching Pharisees) in verse 4 about the lawfulness of doing good deeds on the sabbath day they "held their peace" (but internally, they were probably embarrassed and angry). It is clearly stated in verse 5 that Jesus has an attitude of being "grieved" about the Pharisees. I suppose that it might be possible that Jesus could have been both grieved and angry, but Jesus does not demonstrate anger in His actions here.

Couldn't when he had looked upon those with anger... or when Jesus observed the anger of the Pharisees... be possible paraphrases? Does any one know if the Greek construction could support this interpretation?

 

[Salamander]

Is it possible that Jesus is not the "angry" party here? Does "with anger" really describe Jesus, or is the (closer) antecedent "them"? Did Jesus have anger on His countenance, or did He see Pharisees with anger in their hearts?

"he had looked

looked on

looked on with

(his) anger

Notice that after asking "them" (the watching Pharisees) in verse 4 about the lawfulness of doing good deeds on the sabbath day they "held their peace" (but internally, they were probably embarrassed and angry). It is clearly stated in verse 5 that Jesus has an attitude of being "grieved" about the Pharisees. I suppose that it might be possible that Jesus could have been both grieved and angry, but Jesus does not demonstrate anger in His actions here.

Actually Jesus never has displayed his anger by action, although one may say he did while running those out of the Temple, yet the Bible does not say he was angry.

Looking gives only the appearance of his anger not carried out.

Couldn't when he had looked upon those with anger... or when Jesus observed the anger of the Pharisees... be possible paraphrases? Does any one know if the Greek construction could support this interpretation?

No.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Actually Jesus never has displayed his anger by action, although one may say he did while running those out of the Temple, yet the Bible does not say he was angry...

True. However, the English word "anger" occurs only this once in the Gospels; additionally, the English word "angry" appears only four times in the Gospels, and none of them are in reference to Jesus. Therefore, this seems to be the only passage whereby Jesus' "anger" could have explicitly been animated (if this "anger" is truly His, and I'm not yet convinced that it is).

The Greek word rendered "anger" here is also scarce in the Gospels (just 4 other occurrences, no others in Mark), and again none are describing Jesus. The Greek word is rendered in the KJV overwhelmingly as "wrath" (31 times out of 36 possible, including all 4 of those other occassions in the Gospels). The only two other times the KJV renders it as "anger" is in Ephesians 4:31 ("anger... be put away from you") and Colossians 3:8 ("put off... anger").

There are only two other KJV occurrences of the English word "anger" in the entire NT: at Romans 10:19 ("I will anger you") which is a completely different Greek word; and the "provoke not your children to anger" in Colossians 3:21 which is an inserted clause.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Does "with anger" really describe Jesus, or is the (closer) antecedent "them"? ... Does any one know if the Greek construction could support this interpretation?

This would seem to be a very important question to answer since it is possibly the only referrence to Jesus being "angry" in any form. Even the parallel passages in Matthew & Luke do not mention any "anger" on Jesus' part; but Luke does mention the Pharisee's "fury" (Luke 6:10 KJV) --

And he looked around on them all, and said to him, "Stretch out your hand." And he did so, and his hand was restored.
But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus​

That "with anger" might possibly describe "them" is contrary to every translation and commentary I have consulted. Yet, I have not yet found any explanation of the Greek construction that discribes how orges ("anger") is definitively attributed to Jesus. Is there a grammatical 'rule' or something that addresses this issue?

 

[John of Japan]

Is it possible that Jesus is not the "angry" party here? Does "with anger" really describe Jesus, or is the (closer) antecedent "them"? Did Jesus have anger on His countenance, or did He see Pharisees with anger in their hearts?



This would seem to be a very important question to answer since it is possibly the only referrence to Jesus being "angry" in any form. Even the parallel passages in Matthew & Luke do not mention any "anger" on Jesus' part; but Luke does mention the Pharisee's "fury" (Luke 6:10 KJV) --

And he looked around on them all, and said to him, "Stretch out your hand." And he did so, and his hand was restored.
But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus

​

That "with anger" might possibly describe "them" is contrary to every translation and commentary I have consulted. Yet, I have not yet found any explanation of the Greek construction that discribes how orges ("anger") is definitively attributed to Jesus. Is there a grammatical 'rule' or something that addresses this issue?

There is no way it could refer to anyone but Jesus being angry in Mark 3:5. "Them" is accusative, meaning Jesus was angry at them, not they at Him. "With anger" is a prepositional phrase tied to the "looking around" participle, which must describe Jesus.

 

[franklinmonroe]

There is no way it could refer to anyone but Jesus being angry in Mark 3:5. "Them" is accusative, meaning Jesus was angry at them, not they at Him. "With anger" is a prepositional phrase tied to the "looking around" participle, which must describe Jesus.

Thank you, John! It seems that this is case where keeping the same word order in English as the Greek could allow misunderstanding. If "with anger" is tied to "looking around" then perhaps looking around with anger upon them or angrily looking around at them would be preferable arrangements.

 

[HankD]

Is it possible that Jesus is not the "angry" party here? Does "with anger" really describe Jesus, or is the (closer) antecedent "them"? Did Jesus have anger on His countenance, or did He see Pharisees with anger in their hearts?

Notice that after asking "them" (the watching Pharisees) in verse 4 about the lawfulness of doing good deeds on the sabbath day they "held their peace" (but internally, they were probably embarrassed and angry). It is clearly stated in verse 5 that Jesus has an attitude of being "grieved" about the Pharisees. I suppose that it might be possible that Jesus could have been both grieved and angry, but Jesus does not demonstrate anger in His actions here.

Couldn't when he had looked upon those with anger... or when Jesus observed the anger of the Pharisees... be possible paraphrases? Does any one know if the Greek construction could support this interpretation?

John of Japan gave the grammatical answer but even at that Franklin, we have the following passage as to the possibility of Jesus having the capacity for anger:

Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.


HankD​

 

[John of Japan]

Thank you, John! It seems that this is case where keeping the same word order in English as the Greek could allow misunderstanding. If "with anger" is tied to "looking around" then perhaps looking around with anger upon them or angrily looking around at them would be preferable arrangements.

These are both possible renderings, and might be just a tad clearer. :thumbs:

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan gave the grammatical answer but even at that Franklin, we have the following passage as to the possibility of Jesus having the capacity for anger:

Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:​

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.​

HankD​

Amen! And I believe Rev. has other passages where the Lamb is angry! I'm reminded of Eph. 4:26, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath." Anger can be righteous, depending on its target and motive.

 

[Salamander]

Amen! And I believe Rev. has other passages where the Lamb is angry! I'm reminded of Eph. 4:26, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath." Anger can be righteous, depending on its target and motive.

Uh-oh, now if my wife reads this!???!:laugh:

 

[John of Japan]

Uh-oh, now if my wife reads this!???!:laugh:

Don't tell me you might be the target? :laugh: