As to Paul's comment regarding the circumcision party in Galatians 5:12, you seem to interpret this to mean that Paul wanted these men to physically maim themselves. Why? How would physically maiming themselves prevent the spread of their false gospel? In a culture where eunuchs were not uncommon, I don't think Paul's language had the shock value that it might have in our ears today. Rather than wishing their self-mutilation, I think Paul is expressing his strong desire that the propagation of their false gospel end abruptly--that its ability to bear bad fruit be cut off.

Paul tells the Corinthians (1 Cor 10:32) to "give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God." What does this mean to you?

The reason Jesus is not condemned by Paul's command to the Corinthians is that *intent is implied* in Paul's command. Jesus doesn't intentionally offend. Nevertheless, people take offense at Him. Paul's "Give no offense" cannot be reasonably understood to mean "See that no one *takes* offense", for how can we control other people's responses? But it *can* be reasonably understood to mean, "Do not intentionally or wilfully offend".

You say the "idea that Jesus' actions yielded unintended consequences is rediculous [sic]." So Jesus must have been using reverse psychology on the leper He heals at the end of Mark 1? And He only intended to heal a few sick people in His own country because of the people's unbelief?

Jesus *is* a stumbling stone to some. To others, He is the *cornerstone*. Which He is depends on an individual's response to Him. The *gospel* is an offense to some. We don't have to make it offensive. We simply have to declare it and some will take offense. So Jesus goes about doing His Father's will--teaching with authority, healing on the Sabbath, mingling with tax collectors and sinners, confronting religious leaders with their sin, etc. His *intent* all along is for all to believe in Him. His intent is *not* to offend or stumble anyone.

I have to agree with John Barry on this.

It is interesting to suppose that Jesus meant to offend when there is nothing in the Gospel accounts that makes it clear that His *intent* was offense in these particular passages Pastor Wilson mentions. Truthfully, we can't really speak to Jesus' intent anymore than we can discern the motives of the Gospel writers in presenting the various passages as they did unless such things are put forward in the text.

What we are left with is the text of Scripture and answering a question like the one presented in Matthew 15:12 with the very answer that Jesus *didn't* give us is proceeding from an undoubtedly false hermeneutic. Instead, we should be considering the very answer that Jesus *did* give because it is that answer that is part of Holy Writ and not the imagined paraphrase Wilson would have us believe.

Of course, in addition to the condemnation offered in the Gospels for the Pharisees because they failed to keep the law as they should, we must remember that Jesus wept over these people, that He still loved them as his covenant people, and that His words must be taken with these things in mind as much as we consider His use of satire or other rhetorical devices.

Wilson writes:

"True biblical balance in such things is the fruit of wisdom, and such balance is not usually found in hot-headed young men, who do not know what spirit they are of (Luke 9:55). Consequently, prophetic rebukes should come from seasoned prophets, from men called to and trained for the ministry of guarding the Church of God. This work, this warfare, should be done by men of some age and wisdom, and not by novices, firebrands, and zealots. If some young son of thunder thinks he is gifted and called in this kind of thing, then he should be willing for this restriction. Every time you employ this kind of weapon on your mother, your sister, your wife, or your friend and neighbor, then add another ten years to the time it will take for you to be mature enough to confront the enemy."

These comments would make me laugh if they weren't so conveniently used by a man who's very busy on this website defending the appropriateness of his own comments. No doubt the ecclesiastical establishment of any day has made good use of similar sentiments as that which Pastor Wilson puts forward above.

The truth is however another matter. (cont'd)

For God can use the youngest child (Luke 1:41) and the most stubborn ass (Numbers 22:23). He can use the most hardened enemy of our Lord (John 18:14) and the one man standing outside the ecclesiastical establishment of the day (1 Kings 22).

"The wind blows where it wishes" (John 3: and we worship a God who is both "spirit and truth" (John 4:24). We honor not merely the old and those who think they have the ecclesiastical privilege to speak but those who cling to the prophetic truth of God's Word may they be young, old, least, or greatest among us. If the truth is being spoken it ought to be honored whether presented to us by the appropriate ecclesiastical authority or not.

The last thing we want to be caught doing is slapping the face of the one who has brought us the prophetic word of the hour (1 Kings 22:24) because we are idolatrously honoring age requirements instead.

Last, it might be very appropriate to note exactly where Jesus as a man stood within the covenant community and how that affected or gave context to his use of sarcasm, satire, or other rhetorical devices.

Our Lord wasn't a part of the religious establishment the way that Pastor Wilson is. He didn't moderate presbyteries or with the help of others start a new denomination. Failing to note this context about our Lord may make discerning when and how to use the appropriate amount of sarcasm and satire a very difficult thing.

So far, I haven't seen Wilson comment on the station of Christ in his earthly ministry and how this context affected his view of sarcasm and its use in the covenant community (maybe he does in his book?).

It may very well be that the ecclesiastical station Wilson and others enjoy today might have been the very target of Jesus' words two thousand years ago. That in and of itself would tell me that the care involved in the use of sarcasm and satire by men in that priviliged position today ought to be equivalent to the way we treat nitroglycerine and other volatile explosives--put away in some cool dark room left only to use when absolutely necessary and with the understanding that such devices may be appropriately used against them one day.

Dave, I don't believe love (especially divine love) cuts that closely. No doubt Jesus wept over individual covenant members and His covenant people as a whole.

And, I'm inclined to agree with the idea that young men shouldn't necessarily be firebrands but there is an exception to every rule and looking at the lives of men like John Calvin ought to call some of these "rules to live by" into question in addition to what I've already indicated above.

Furthermore, some of the most fire-branded types of young men (and women, incidentally) I've ever met come directly out of NSA and given that such is the case we might want to question just a bit whether or not Wilson's dictum is really as true as it should be. Giving lip-service to it on a website and then watching what's produced by the particular covenant community in question shows me at least the real truth of the matter.