Christians please explain Luke 5:31-32

[morteduzionism]

And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Here's my dilema the way this reads, IMO, is that Jesus is establishing two different types of people contemporaneous with himself: the righteous and sinners

He then with no uncertain terms states, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Who were/are the "righteous?"

Doesn't these words attributed to Jesus, a) trump any reinterpretation by later biblical scholars and b) strongly imply that he [Jesus the Christ] didn't think everyone needed to hear his message?

Doesn't that conclusion (b) therefore contradict the popular belief that a) everyone is a sinner and b) everyone needs the message of Christ?

Christians explain...

[Mithie]

Basically, the two categories are broken down as follows:

In one category (the Righteous) you have Jesus's mommy.

In the other (the sinners) everyone else.

[Ummon]

There's a strange involution to (the arguments of) some Buddhists, these days.

[morteduzionism]

There's a strange involution to (the arguments of) some Buddhists, these days.

Who is a Buddhist and what does Buddhism have to do with this?

What is complex about this?

There's either a class of people called "righteous" who, according to Jesus the Christ, do not need his message or there isn't.

It's a simple question: Who are the people Jesus was referring to when he said "righteous?"

I can't explain this fully right now, the answer is still formulating in my head. But you have to consider that he was speaking to the Pharisees in that passage, considered "righteous" in that society. In that society, Jesus came to save the sinners and those who sought him, firstly.

The Pharissees asked his disciples why does he [Jesus] dine with "tax collectors and sinners"...which elicited the response found in Luke 5:31-32...

IMO, it's obvious that "the righteous" are another segment of the population separate from Pharisees, disciples, tax collectors and/or sinners...

Besides you'd have to put some serious spin on your argument to suggest that Jesus considered the Pharisees "righteous"...

EDIT (response):

edit: I wouldn't call righteous utterly sin-free either. You could say Jesus's disciples are righteous as well.

Whether they're free of sin or not doesn't matter. Jesus said he didn't come for them. His disciples are not righteous. Why? Jesus clearly stated that he came to call sinners to repentance. The logical conclusion is that anyone attracted to him or his message is/was a sinner.

[D.B. Cooper]

I can't explain this fully right now, the answer is still formulating in my head. But you have to consider that he was speaking to the Pharisees in that passage, considered "righteous" in that society. In that society, Jesus came to save the sinners and those who sought him, firstly.

edit: I wouldn't call righteous utterly sin-free either. You could say Jesus's disciples are righteous as well.

[Djûn]

Hmm... I may be talking complete rubbish, but I believe that what Jesus was trying to get at was this:

Some people were living their lives in a righteous manner, but this does not mean they were not sinners. This is simply because of the Doctrine of Original Sin, i.e. Everyone is a sinner. Hence, he compared himself to a physician who is able to help those who are not living like the 'righteous', but this does not mean that the latter are not needing their original sin removed through Christ's death.

@Ummon:

I, too, thought it oddly similar to the Buddha's encounter with the Brahma Sahampati.

[morteduzionism]

Hmm... I may be talking complete rubbish, but I believe that what Jesus was trying to get at was this:

Some people were living their lives in a righteous manner, but this does not mean they were not sinners. This is simply because of the Doctrine of Original Sin, i.e. Everyone is a sinner. Hence, he compared himself to a physician who is able to help those who are not living like the 'righteous', but this does not mean that the latter are not needing their original sin removed through Christ's death.

Original Sin was created centuries after the alleged life of Christ, so how can it be applicable to a period contemporary with his life?

I, too, thought it oddly similar to the Buddha's encounter with the Brahma Sahampati.

Elaborate...

EDIT: I tried to find some info on it and did...I could see how one could see similiarities between Luke 5:31-32 and the encounter with Sahampati...

But...

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Corinthinans 2:14

I think that is a closer match...

[Djûn]

Original Sin was created centuries after the alleged life of Christ, so how can it be applicable to a period contemporary with his life?

The doctrine may have been created centuries after the Jesus, son of Joseph. But does this necessarily mean that it did not exist before this point?

EDIT: I tried to find some info on it and did...I could see how one could see similiarities between Luke 5:31-32 and the encounter with Sahampati...

But...

I think that is a closer match...

Indeed, I only commented that it seemed oddly similar But to draw parallels between Buddhism and Christianity is an entirely different discussion.

EDIT: Found the verse I was referring to: Samyutta Nikaya 6.1 --> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....001.than.html

[morteduzionism]

The doctrine may have been created centuries after the Jesus, son of Joseph. But does this necessarily mean that it did not exist before this point?

No, it doesn't.

The problem is that in Luke 5:31-32 he clearly states that there's a segment of the population he did not come for. He clearly makes a distinction between righteous and sinners.

There's an example provided for the type of person associated with/considered a "sinner" and that is: tax collectors.

He doesn't imply anything about "the righteous."

So who are they?

The only other place, I know of, where Jesus might have provided an answer to who he considers "righteous" is in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

One problem: the Samaritan wasn't a Christian.

In no way, IMO, does this imply that ALL non-Christians are "righteous." However, I think it does lay the foundation for the notion that one can be "righteous" without being a Christian. This would include Agnostics, Atheists, Pantheists, etc...

[Djûn]

In no way, IMO, does this imply that ALL non-Christians are "righteous." However, I think it does lay the foundation for the notion that one can be "righteous" without being a Christian. This would include Agnostics, Atheists, Pantheists, etc...

I would agree with this point wholeheartedly.

However, to drag this back to the doctrine of original sin, why does the doctrine's creation after Jesus's death suddenly nullify its effect before its creation? The idea itself explains that all people were born with original sin, since the beginning of Man's life on Earth, not since the creation of the doctrine.

Ummon: Yes, sorry, I typed in the wrong number. It has been corrected now, though the link is still to the correct verse.

[Musashi]

No, it doesn't.

The problem is that in Luke 5:31-32 he clearly states that there's a segment of the population he did not come for. He clearly makes a distinction between righteous and sinners.

There's an example provided for the type of person associated with/considered a "sinner" and that is: tax collectors.

He doesn't imply anything about "the righteous."

So who are they?

The only other place, I know of, where Jesus might have provided an answer to who he considers "righteous" is in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

One problem: the Samaritan wasn't a Christian.

In no way, IMO, does this imply that ALL non-Christians are "righteous." However, I think it does lay the foundation for the notion that one can be "righteous" without being a Christian. This would include Agnostics, Atheists, Pantheists, etc...

I had an impression that he was talking about the people who allready follow Gods word(righteous) and people who don't (Sinners)
He was after all supposed to save the sinners.
I don't think it was ment to be taken literally.

[Legio XII]

No, it doesn't.

The problem is that in Luke 5:31-32 he clearly states that there's a segment of the population he did not come for. He clearly makes a distinction between righteous and sinners.

He is not saying he did not come for them at all. He is saying there are those who do not need to hear his message; they already know it. They already live in the way that Jesus would instrtuct, and do not need further instruction. Think of it like this: Would you go to a review session for a test you have already passed? That may be somewhat of an oversimplification, but it gets the point across.

In other words, he is there for them should they need him, but he (Jesus), prioritizing by seeking out those who need his help the most. The problem with your interpretation is that it is abolute and rather literal. You take it that Jesus does not care about or seek out a segment of the population at all, when in fact it simply means that there are those who have greater need than others, not an absence of need.

People in general, Christians and non-Christians alike, need to stop taking the Bible literally on every point and trying to find something wrong or right with it in every word. Take it all with a grain of salt, look for the meaning behind the words, not nitpick the words themselves ( a rather pointless process, given the numerous translations, where one small change can change the whole meaning of a passage. )

[Ummon]

6.1 infact.

I have heard that on one occasion, when the Blessed One was newly Self-awakened, he was staying at Uruvela on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the Goatherd's Banyan Tree. Then, while he was alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking arose in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me."

Just then these verses, unspoken in the past, unheard before, occurred to the Blessed One:

Enough now with teaching
what
only with difficulty
I reached.
This Dhamma is not easily realized
by those overcome
with aversion & passion.

What is abstruse, subtle,
deep,
hard to see,
going against the flow —
those delighting in passion,
cloaked in the mass of darkness,
won't see.
As the Blessed One reflected thus, his mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma.

Then Brahma Sahampati, having known with his own awareness the line of thinking in the Blessed One's awareness, thought: "The world is lost! The world is destroyed! The mind of the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Rightly Self-awakened One inclines to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma!" Then, just as a strong man might extend his flexed arm or flex his extended arm, Brahma Sahampati disappeared from the Brahma-world and reappeared in front of the Blessed One. Arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, he knelt down with his right knee on the ground, saluted the Blessed One with his hands before his heart, and said to him: "Lord, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the One-Well-Gone teach the Dhamma! There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma."

That is what Brahma Sahampati said. Having said that, he further said this:

In the past
there appeared among the Magadhans
an impure Dhamma
devised by the stained.
Throw open the door to the Deathless!
Let them hear the Dhamma
realized by the Stainless One!

Just as one standing on a rocky crag
might see people
all around below,
So, O wise one, with all-around vision,
ascend the palace
fashioned of the Dhamma.
Free from sorrow, behold the people
submerged in sorrow,
oppressed by birth & aging.

Rise up, hero, victor in battle!
O Teacher, wander without debt in the world.
Teach the Dhamma, O Blessed One:
There will be those who will understand.
Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world. Just as in a pond of blue or red or white lotuses, some lotuses — born and growing in the water — might flourish while immersed in the water, without rising up from the water; some might stand at an even level with the water; while some might rise up from the water and stand without being smeared by the water — so too, surveying the world with the eye of an Awakened One, the Blessed One saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world.

Having seen this, he answered Brahma Sahampati in verse:

Open are the doors to the Deathless
to those with ears.
Let them show their conviction.
Perceiving trouble, O Brahma,
I did not tell people the refined,
sublime Dhamma.
Then Brahma Sahampati, thinking, "The Blessed One has given his consent to teach the Dhamma," bowed down to the Blessed One and, circling him on the right, disappeared right there.

And anytime you question Jesus, keep this in mind: http://www.101zenstories.com/index.php?story=16

Not Far From Buddhahood

A university student while visiting Gasan asked him: "Have you even read the Christian Bible?"

"No, read it to me," said Gasan.

The student opened the Bible and read from St. Matthew: "And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these...Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."

Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider and enlightened man."

The student continued reading: "Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, is shall be opened."

Gasan remarked: "That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from Buddhahood."

[morteduzionism]

Ok, we've seen the Buddhist connection I think that's more similiar to 1 Corinthians 2:14 than Luke 5:31-32...but that's neither here nor there...

Who are "the righteous" referred to in Luke 5:31-32?

We have a vote for Jesus' moms. A vote for the Pharisees and a vote for (forgive me if I mess up) the notion that the "righteous" were sinners who hadn't sinned that much. <-------------that's what I'm getting from the posts...

:hmmm:...

However, to drag this back to the doctrine of original sin, why does the doctrine's creation after Jesus's death suddenly nullify its effect before its creation? The idea itself explains that all people were born with original sin, since the beginning of Man's life on Earth, not since the creation of the doctrine.

hmm...

If you believe god planted the idea in St. Augustine's head, there's no problem.

but...

If you believe St. Augustine created the notion to assist with his overt efforts to control people (i.e. his instructions on how to use persuasion, etc) then there's a problem...

also...

The nagging idea that if Jesus wanted the doctrine included in his teachings he would've done it himself.

[Djûn]

...the notion that the "righteous" were sinners who hadn't sinned that much. <-------------that's what I'm getting from the posts...

:hmmm:...

The notion I'm trying to get across is simply this:

Original Sin dictates that all people are born sinners, because of their initial disobedience of God's Laws in the Garden of Eden (take it metaphorically or literally, either way works). Now, this means that no matter how you live your life, you are a sinner before Christ's sacrifice. Hence, a 'righteous' person could be one of these people who had no sin upon them save for Original Sin, which could then be forgiven after Jesus's death.

Does that make sense?

[Ummon]

Absolutely no need to be sorry. Slips happen to anyone: I am dysgraphic, I know.

Ok, we've seen the Buddhist connection I think that's more similiar to 1 Corinthians 2:14 than Luke 5:31-32...but that's neither here nor there...

Who are "the righteous" referred to in Luke 5:31-32?

We have a vote for Jesus' moms. A vote for the Pharisees and a vote for (forgive me if I mess up) the notion that the "righteous" were sinners who hadn't sinned that much. <-------------that's what I'm getting from the posts...

:hmmm:...

In a sense there is a further little issue with that verse. Do not worry who are the righteous. It is possible that they do not even exist.

[morteduzionism]

In a sense there is a further little issue with that verse. Do not worry who are the righteous. It is possible that they do not even exist.

So what're you saying Jesus was talking (*)hit!?

Original Sin dictates that all people are born sinners, because of their initial disobedience of God's Laws in the Garden of Eden (take it metaphorically or literally, either way works). Now, this means that no matter how you live your life, you are a sinner before Christ's sacrifice. Hence, a 'righteous' person could be one of these people who had no sin upon them save for Original Sin, which could then be forgiven after Jesus's death.

Does that make sense?

Yes.

Still a problem though...

Jesus explicitly says he did not come for the "righteous"... In essence he's saying, IMO, his whole raison d'etre DOES NOT have anything to do with "the righteous"...

Sort of like: If a student has an "A" average at the end of a school year they're exempt from having to take a final exam...this clearly creates two classes of people 1.) students with an A average and 2.) those without...

There's simply not much wiggle room there.

Especially if/when you factor in the parable of the Samaritan. Here in clear terms he uses a non-believers actions/life as an example to his disciples of proper behavior.

It's simple to infer from Luke 5:31-32 that his disciples are in fact "sinners" since Jesus is giving them his teachings/message, as he said he came to call sinners to repentance.

IMO, he strongly implies on two different occasions that there's a type of person out there that is...something other than a sinner.

And to reiterate, I can't get over the feeling that if Jesus wanted to include the idea of Original Sin in his teachings...he would've done it...

[Ummon]

He is telling you: I am not here for you, if you believe you already know. As well.

Reminds me of another Zen story. http://www.udaypai.in/?page_id=13

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

The teacher willingly complied, and began explaining. But as his story unfolded, the learned man frequently interrupted with remarks like, “Oh, yes, I know that already,” and “That is of course a part of many philosophies”.

Finally, the Nan-in stopped talking and began to serve tea to the learned man.

He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”

“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”

[morteduzionism]

He is telling you: I am not here for you, if you believe you already know. As well.

How do you infer "belief" out of Luke 5:31-32? Jesus isn't debating with a non-believer who is arguing that he doesn't need the teachings...

Jesus states that a healthy person doesn't need a doctor.

He is clearly saying there're "healthy" people currently in the world...

Who are they?

[Ummon]

Because do you know anyone who already knows God? Do you know anyone who is perfectly sinless?

Besides, many times Jesus expressed his criticism of merely formal adherence to the law.