@TCC
You have presented some deeper insights that I never considered. Thanks for your input. I appreciate your ability to see bigger and deeper, to peer into dark corners, and visualize posibilities with empathy. I appreciate how you employ these gifts in the edification of The Body of Christ. I likewise appreciate your testimony regarding what you will, and what you refuse to expose yourself to. I guess we have all developed some hard-lines we will not cross, and have also developed some personal “guilty pleasures” that we justify as “not so bad”. It may be time for me to reevaluate those lines.
Thanx again.
Thanks for your kind words brother. Sometimes i feel a bit ridiculous saying so much about seemingly so little. lol. Briefly you mentioned on a previous post how you notice too (like myself as well) that there is a lot of division in the body. For example like with eschatology (a pretty big one to divide over). I agree, it is big and sad today. It is kind of even i guess i would say (much beyond just eschatology) an epidemic…maybe even a pandemic. Whatever all that is, it is our context today.
Since that is our context, I have found helpful over the years to work a little harder at where others might be coming from to be perhaps just as (or more) important than how i am looking at it. I kind of needed to be ran over by a fleet of tractor trailers for that sort of thing to stay in place long enough for where it is like that to make itself soberly self evident. I don’t suppose we ever fully arrive at that place in the temporal. But just one thing of that kind I can share from my own similar journey is that pushing myself a bit harder to understand others is a safeguard for me laying too much of my own views ahead of that horse (like as in putting the carriage in front of the horse pulling it metaphor). Sometimes out of general inquiry it is ok to just let our hair down. And sometimes there are times our views have need to be prominent.
In one case, we can be casual about how we see things to let others know about us. In the other case, there are times God affords us in His body to see soberly enough to insist upon our claims. But other than those two unique opportunities (the second being likely far more unique than the former), what i hope is an increasingly strengthened guiding principle along the way is how far and deep 1 Cor 13:7 can go. Particularly the hope part. Going too far is reckless and ignorant. But not going far enough can tend to limit visibility from lack of the exercise of muscles like that i reckon. We are all in this boat together. I really appreciate your heart brother. Thanks.
I watched this many many years ago in a youth group meeting, and the youth pastor regretted showing it.
I think it depends on your own faith and what exactly you are looking for. If you are sensitive to the secular world, then no. Do not watch it. If you do not listen to secular music, or secular views or perspectives, then no. Do not watch it.
Jesus Christ SuperStar is not meant to be an exact retelling of the story of Christ, so if you are looking for a musical retelling of the Passion set in the 1970s, I assure you, this is not that.
But if you can watch it and appreciate it for what it is, by all means go ahead.
Jesus Christ Superstar is a more universal interpretation of Christ’s Teachings that strips away religion and focusses more on the message rather than Dogma; a film that examines that era, full of wars and protests and hippy culture, and conveys a message regarding it.
It has been a number of years since I have seen it, so I can’t honestly say how closely the message lines up with Christ’s actual Teachings, or if it is just a way to share the hippy message of, “make love not war.”
Is it LOVE- as Christ shows us? Or love, as far as humans understand it? Probably the latter. But you can tell us if you watch it.
Quite astute you are. While honring my mother and gaining a connection to her that I’ve not felt in a while are underlying factors in my wanting to watch JCS, I also have a guinuine interest in older films, and the story they tell, not just in the film, but in how and why they were made.
Of note, I wish to point out, that while A.L.W. did indeed come up with the concept, I want to know if the film holds true to his idea, or if the director, Jewison, changed it, and if so, why and how. Additionally, one thing the reviews AND critiques missed explaining was why the actors (in the movie) went to film this in the first place.
As to if I could watch it and not be “muddied” by it, the answer is yes. I love cinema and a good story and I fully believe that diversions for entrtainment and education are allowed Biblically. Jesus himself was a story teller. Do I think Jesus himself would watch it? Yes, if but to point out that there is a message to learn in it!
tn Or “shown to be right.” This is the same verb translated “acknowledged … justice” in v. 29, with a similar sense—including the notion of response. Wisdom’s children are those who respond to God through John and Jesus.
tn Or “by all those who follow her” (cf. CEV, NLT). Note that the parallel in Matt 11:19 reads “by her deeds.”
The meaning of Jesus’s adage “Wisdom is justified by all her children." is not obscure in any language. Very similar to another adage of His, “you shall know them by their fruits”, He reminds His hearers that any wise advice or act will be proven to be right (righteous), obviously validated by the positive outcomes (children, fruit) it produces. It has a similar warning as that contained in the adage: “You will reap what you sew”.
How do you connect the dots with “you will reap what you sew?”
Mat 11:19 The Ben HaAdam [Moshiach] came eating and drinking, and they say, Hinei! A zolel (glutton) and a shikkor (drunkard), a friend of mochesim (tax collectors) and choteim (sinners). Yet, Chochmah (Wisdom) is vindicated by her maasim.
Mat 11:11 Truly I say to you, There has not arisen among those born of a woman any greater than John the Baptist. But the least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than he is.
Mat 11:12 But from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and the violent are robbing it.
Mat 11:13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
Mat 11:14 And if you are willing to receive, this is Elijah, who was to come.
Mat 11:15 The one having ears to hear, let him hear.
Mat 11:16 But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like little children sitting in the markets, and calling to their mates,
Mat 11:17 and saying, We sang to you, and you did not dance; we mourned to you, and you did not lament.
Mat 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon.
Mat 11:19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man and a wine drinker, and a friend of tax collectors, and of sinners; but wisdom is justified by its works.
HRB
Mat 11:18 ¶ Because John didn’t come eating or drinking, yet people [Lit. they] say, ‘He has a demon!’
Mat 11:19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’
Absolved from every act of sin,
is wisdom by her kith and kin.” [Lit. by all her children; other mss. read by her actions]
ISV.
When…But wisdom is justified of her children. There is a great variety amongst interpreters in giving the sense of these words.?
is justified. +*Psa_51:4, *+**Pro_8:8; *+**Pro_8:9, *Luk_7:29; *Luk_7:35, *Jhn_8:43, *Rom_3:4; *Rom_11:33, **1Co_2:14; **1Co_2:15.
her children. Pro_8:32, Luk_7:35; +Luk_10:6; +*Luk_16:8, Eph_2:2.
Here wisdom speaks, has children, gives instruction, and produces life. The validation of wisdom is not philosophical coherence, but the lives that come from listening to her. That conceptual structure is identical to Luke 7:35.
This is not merely similar, it is structurally the same argument. Identity is demonstrated by production. Wisdom is not self-authenticating; it is externally verified.
This is the Matthean parallel to Luke 7:35 and confirms that “children” refers to the observable outcomes of God’s wisdom embodied in ministry responses, not abstract ideas.
Third, moral causality parallels, where vindication follows action.
While not wisdom literature strictly, this expresses the same moral logic. Reality itself exposes what is true. Wisdom does not need applause; time and consequence do the work.
Here δικαιόω again means “shown to be right” in the face of judgment. Luke 7:35 uses the same forensic logic, just applied to wisdom personified.
So when all this is placed together, Luke 7:35 is not obscure, mystical, or ambiguous. It is sapiential common sense sharpened into an indictment. The generation wants to judge God’s messengers by style and expectation. Jesus insists that wisdom submits to a different court. Her verdict is rendered by her children.
Deductive crash course will suffice.
J.
Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. - KJV ↩︎
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise. - KJV ↩︎
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. - KJV ↩︎
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. - KJV ↩︎
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - KJV ↩︎
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. - KJV ↩︎
…that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. - KJV ↩︎
(Oops, I should have said “you will reap what you sow”. See what happens when you rely on spell-check? My-bad. Sorry.)
These three adages, (there may be others) speak generally of specific causes have specific effects.
“Wisdom is justified by all her children” That is, sound truth (wisdom) is shown to be sound by the effect it produces. Wisdom produces a positive effect which can be seen, thus proving it was wise. The quality of the wisdom is known by the quality of the effects it produces.
“You shall know them by their fruits” The true inner man can be known by the expressions of his life. Like wisdom, what is true in a man can be seen through what he does. The quality of a man’s character is known by the quality of the effects of his life.
“You will reap what you sow” From looking at the harvest the kind of seed sewn is obvious. Each seed produces its specific fruit. He who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. (Galatians 6:8) The quality of the seed is known by the quality of the plant it produces, and so every outcome in a persons life originates as a seedling “cause” that was planted
Luke 7:35 has nothing directly to do with the reaping-and-sowing principle in the moral-causal sense. Any overlap is analogical at best, not conceptual or textual.
Here is the clean distinction, and it matters. Zes me.
“Reaping what you sow” is about moral causality over time. It addresses how actions generate consequences for the actor. You do X, you eventually receive Y. The subject is the sower. The focus is future outcome. The logic is causal and often delayed.
“Wisdom is justified by all her children” is about public vindication in the present. The subject is wisdom. The focus is not consequence but evidence. The children are not punishments or rewards; they are witnesses. The logic is forensic, not agricultural.
Different metaphors, different questions.
In Luke 7, no one is being warned that they will suffer consequences later if they reject wisdom. That warning exists elsewhere, but not here. What is happening is an argument about who gets to judge whom. The generation is judging John and Jesus.Jesus responds by saying wisdom has already been judged, and the verdict is in. Her children exist. Case closed.
That is why δικαιοῦται is passive and aorist. The judgment has already occurred. Wisdom is not waiting for harvest season. She has offspring standing in the room.
So when you say Luke 7:35 means “you reap what you sow,” you are importing a different biblical principle because it feels familiar and safe. It softens the edge. But it is not what the sentence is doing.
Here’s the morphology.
In the clause καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς, the aorist passive indicative verb ἐδικαιώθη from δικαιόω presents a completed act of public vindication in which wisdom is not the actor but the recipient of judgment, the nominative singular subject ἡ σοφία functioning as a recognized personification drawn from Jewish wisdom tradition, while the preposition ἀπό governing the genitive phrase πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς expresses the source of that vindication, namely the totality of her offspring, with πάντων emphasizing completeness, τέκνων denoting produced outcomes rather than mere adherents, and the possessive genitive αὐτῆς anchoring those outcomes exclusively to wisdom herself, so that the syntax as a whole states not a proverb about delayed consequences but a settled forensic verdict that wisdom has already been proven right by what she has produced.
If anything, Luke 7:35 is more confrontational. It says, in effect: you think you are discerning, but the evidence proves you are misjudging God’s work right now.
No, Bro @Johann, I would never think you are “totally wrong”. I see what you are saying, and I appreciate the nuance. You make some great points. Of course, as you surely know, I was not proffering these three adages to be identical but only that they share some similarities in their teaching effect. They are adages, so as you say, they are “analogical”. I loved your line “The logic is forensic, not agricultural.” It made me smile.
I would weigh-in on your personal rendering of “καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς”, but not in Joe’s thread. For now, I hear you, I appreciate your thoughts, and I will give proper consideration to the distinctions you are making. Great work.
Thanks Joe. This is in some ways a healing type of explanation. For me in general I have an interest largely in story from a somewhat theological place.
THE THEOLOGICAL
As I saw how God used it in my life to bring me out of extreme backsliding. Which kind of has an irony itself. That God would use “story,” an often controversial subject, to pull me out of deep backsliding. So being able to see how God uses story “personally’ kind of got me really interested in the relationship of literary style and how style and genre might relate or be used by God even.
An example of this for me is that I took university courses in rhetorical theory, creative writing, and what are the dynamic and active real world social building blocks of human communication because of seeing God use these dramatically in my life. One literary style I was presented with I believe is very likely an actual biblical hermeneutic for the book of Revelation. Sounds wild, right? lol.
So of all the styles of writing, my least favorite was called modular narrative. Instead of pure linear progression, its approach to story centrally is theme. So it would tell a story like maybe four different ways around a character or event. Using flash forward and flash back. And may be linear but is often not its main narrative styled tool for story telling. It was not a known literary device until the 1800s. And is most known for its style in modern day Hollywood motion pictures. Here is a brief article about that in general if interested: Modular Narratives in Contemporary Cinema by Allan Cameron – Senses of Cinema
I believe it is a hermeneutic for Revelation because (although it is a book to bless all generations) humanity is finally linguistically catching up to the style and form it likely is most profoundly written in. A more obnoxious way of saying that is: When Hollywood makes movies, the literary style in relation to Revelation will become more apparent. Likely because the events in that book that occur, would likely be most discoverable literarily by the writing style most familiar to the age of that generation it occurs in. Thus, the motion picture era. And our being familiar with modular narratives (even if informally), have a super leg up from an “our understanding that form of writing expression (and how it is laid out),” standpoint. It is also very characteristic of the book title “Revealing” being possibly something that actually would appear to increase in revelatory effect by its tandem ride-along with humanity’s evolving discoveries of more complex genres or literary styles we “come of age” to better understand.
Daniel as well seems to have that going on in it as well in ways. For example, why are the chapters in Daniel not in chronological order? This may have far more to do with an ancient Hebraic trope (if anyone is aware of that please mention) than it also being modular narrative. But if modular narrative-esque, it would make sense too as its reach climaxes in the tribulation (and post tribulation) era.
If of interest, i could provide a brief breakdown of what I mean in the book of Revelation…should this be of interest.
But you have a genuine and organic interest in story and cinema, for its own sake. Amen.
I was kind of raised on semi-fundamentalist Christian notions. It was a lot more mature than other versions i have seen of it out there. The upside of it is it gives context, care, and anchoring. The downside is it can “greatly” tend to replace Him with Us. Defeating the entire purpose and reason for it. In its worst case scenarios, it can be understood as a theological liquefier (compressing theological adherence into spiritual/liquid concentrate form), derivative maker – reducing the quality of life into merely a derivative of it. Such as we would see like a Taliban rule method to turn sports stadiums into camps for hanging those who do not comply. Eliminating all forms of art as blaspheme.
I am grateful for a heart such as yours to express that our being created in His image will produce being interested in things for their own sake, because God created it that way. And we are to enjoy them in appreciation. Enjoying something for its own sake can be a true homage to its utility in which God created it and called it, “good.”
So i can appreciate your unadulterated (dare i say…lol) interest in story and film because of what they are. For God has uniquely created us this way. Having an interest in law for its own sake and the sake of others produces lawyers and statesmen. Engineer for those who would build our cities and help us live reasonably. Cars for transportation, safety, and style. Food production so we can eat. Could we imagine if any of those were abandoned because the interest in those things were merely only an echo of things to do while 90% of the time making it more about God than the thing? It would be diluted ignorantly in quality. This leads me to consider that the fine-tuned appreciation of a thing for itself will have us stand before kings because of ability, insight, and the genuine human quality of devotion (proverbs 2:29). Qualities also ordained in us to be put to use for His honor in us being of (and acting in formation thereof) His creation engaging purity of focus and determination as innovations in us of and by Him.
So I am very blessed to see a true veteran heart toward a subject matter. Exercising those things in us He has so fine-tuned in gifting. Like just being interested in history for some because it is fascinating to know how things happened. And that we are a part of a human race where these things mattered to our ancestors. And to re-live how that was or why that was act…is meat on our socially created creature bones. So to invert that (blending the first part of this post with its latter part), I once heard a preacher encourage us to be in church. Not just because we should. Or even because we want to. But because it is there in His community we get to see through the vast qaulities of one another a far more accurate portrait of Him. So in like fashion, it is awesome to extent perhaps this sentiment in to other aspects of life. Not always knowing why it might be important to us as it is a symptom that we are truly alive. Blessings.
Your insights are profound, (as always) and quite sophisticated, and I always appreciate them very much, but still, I have this to add.
Your liberal approval on artistic grounds presupposes that the subject matter of this particular movie is neutral. You are treating it as if the story is of the same weight as a cinimatic depiction of the difficulties of a poor subsistence farmer living through the dustbowl in the 30’s, or of the whirl-pooled thoughts of a ship’s captain as he navigates the many perils of the sea. You are speaking like this is just another entertaining story, a clever theatre piece good-heartedly helping us to appreciate a deeper message.
My objection was not because I find any artistic merit lacking, but I objected on the grounds that this movie is intentionally depicting the God of All Creation in a negative light. Denigrating our Savior for profit. An appalling misrepresentation of The One Singular Importance on this small solar-orbiting blue globe. This consideration must be thought of in light of God’s stern warning to not make any graven image of Him, not to try to portray Him, or to attempt to accurately represent Him in some art form because all such artistic attempts, at best, offer a horribly reductive misrepresentation of the One True Eternal Reality in whom we all live and move and have our being. The Jews refused to even say or write His name. Maybe I failed to bring this point out into the light, but depicting God is not something we should take lightly (IMHO).
It doesn’t exactly presuppose that the subject matter of the movie is neutral. I can understand brother in how it might seem like that if I also say: Having interest in story itself is good. There could seem to genuinely be conflation there. Before I go further, KP, your care for Him and His word and your heart toward being the first to greet me, brother, has you as well in great esteem in my heart. I completely concur with your concerns of the body in any way participating in what might seem to be evil. So if Joe goes and sees it and reports on it and another brother who’s not as perhaps stable or mature to handle what that movie might throw at us goes and watches because of Joe’s take, these would also be things we as believers should consider too. I’ve literally walked out of movies i had no business being in. Not because of false ideas of God. But because they were too worldly. it made no sense to sit through that.
I don’t believe though that my attempts at discussion here boil down to mere story themselves. Perhaps mere POVs. What I tend to find myself often doing is hopefully providing context where something could be healthy for a believer. That may seem very contrary here. But because of devotion to high church minded ministry philosophy to warn and keep us on the straight and narrow, adhering to their spirit of the age neo-holy church ministry operations, it cost me a wife, 3 careers, and a much dumbed down sense of common social interaction in many instances. lol. Yes, me.
I wanted the church to look good though. I know it was not their aim to have me make them look good. They were not just sophisticated in their clever modes to train my behavior through unrelenting parabolic like ministry operational theater (a sense of story i would tend not to appreciate as much for it being just what it was). I know well their supreme and good intentions. Had i not a sense of grounding to degree it was quite enough to drive some to unalive themselves…which did occur as a result of that ministry. I know one personally. Its not as much story, for me, as it is a guardian care that living breathing medieval spirited notions (of which there are so many and is to such heights i could see it as qualifying as a literal end time church sense itself) fire breath alignment with the ideas of men as though they were of God. I have not just seen its underbelly. I kind of lived on its golf course, sadly.
None of the above do I mean to suggest the arenas of your concerns. For not only is your well meant heart apparent. You pure desire in his word is real. This is clear. Amen. And your technical biblical concerns are well placed. You are not engaged in theatrics or manipulation. You come as you are, and offer no pretense. You bear your heart on you sleeve from care, not from inexperience. Therefore, you can afford to be bold in the moment. Because of how you have done what is possible, reasonable, and available to prep one’s self to be in “the moment.” A moment you genuinely live in. Having said that though, aside from that, lets look at an example though of said claim.
I’m always interested in good thoughts.
