Why does Jesus hate....lawyers?

[Lanolin]

He really didnt like them, they were in the same category as Pharisees and scribes.

I find it interesting that, when he was arrested, no lawyer came to defend him. Probably they would only do it if they got paid a handsome sum.

This seems kinda weird given that in some circles, lawyers are highly respected and a profession that many people seem to want aspire to?! And it seems half of them decide they dont want to be lawyers after a while and become politicians. The others just go into writing crime novels.

what kind of person really wants to grow up to be...a lawyer? Are there christian lawyers? If so I have never encountered any, and I meet people of all types at church.

 

[p_rehbein]

Don't blame lawyers for not stepping up to defend Christ. NO PERSON DID. Remember that even His disciples turned from Him. So, that's really not on the lawyers.

Now, as for hating them............I think Jesus hates sinful living. And, if the lawyers at that time were corrupt, and living a sinful lifestyle, that is what He hated.

Are there Christian Lawyers? I think so. May be rare, but try doing a "search" on the Internet. Type in:

Christian Lawyers

Hit "enter" and see what you find.

 

[CharliRenee]

Interesting OP...

He didn't like tax collectors either, huh, likened the to gentiles, lol. I think it is is the corruption that must have been common among tax collectors then. Lawyers, like politicians, seem to have (well, they don't have to but it seems like it would be like choosing the lesser of two evils in many of their hard decisions)... anyways they often to that compromise their integrity to get the job done. I wouldn't want that responsibility.

If you HAD to be a lawyer, would you rather be the prosecuting or the defending?

 

[p_rehbein]

Defense Counsel I think. When in the Military, I did a stent with the JAG Corps, and was on the Prosecution side. It was ok. God some bad people out of the Service, and got some good people cleared of charges they were innocent of. Even working with the Prosecution, it is imperative to know one is actually prosecuting a guilty person! As the NCOIC, I oversaw numerous cases........and can say with a clear heart that each guilty person received punishment equal to their crime, and no innocent person was punished.

Still, in Civilian life, I would rather be on the Defense........

 

[Lanolin]

Wow I did find some christian lawyers online. They even have conferences.

Huh. Well of course in Jesus day there were no christian lawyers as noone had been converted yet, so they must have all been corrupt.

Although believers are not meant to go to court against each other...cos believers are a repenting and forgiving bunch.

 

[CharliRenee]

Hey you guys, I have a quick question.

I could start another thread but I thought I'd ask here.

Any thoughts on this verse interpretations?

But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
1 Corinthians 11:5 NASB

 

[Nehemiah6]

He really didnt like them, they were in the same category as Pharisees and scribes.

Jesus hated no one. He hated their evil thoughts and deeds. And the lawyers of his day were not the same as the lawyers of today. You could call them "Torah theologians".

As to lawyers becoming politicians, there should be a ban placed on that practice, since there is a conflict of interest. There should also be strict term limits on politicians and supreme court judges -- no more than two terms, plus the provision to fire them by their constituents for non-performance of their promises. For example, all the RINOs should have been fired for not resolving the Obamacare debacle when they had a chance to do so.

Also, politicians should be barred from making spending decisions. They should be allowed to make recommendations, but there should be an independent body which controls spending, ensures that budget deficits are not allowed, and there is no money borrowed for spending on wasteful programs. Cutting back the compensation of politicians would also increase the funds for more productive spending. Then (hopefully) we would see a totally reformed government. I realize that this is a digression (and also wishful thinking), but no one wants to address their fundamental issues.

 

[Lanolin]

How would the lawyers have defended Christ if they were called to do so (without being paid of course)?

I wonder what Jesus defense case would have been like, had he a proper trial.
They would have listed all the miracles he did, all the healings, all the lives he touched. It would have been a filibuster to end all filibusters.

 

[p_rehbein]

Hey you guys, I have a quick question.

I could start another thread but I thought I'd ask here.

Any thoughts on this verse interpretations?

But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
1 Corinthians 11:5 NASB

You picked one of the controversial Chapters written by the Apostle Paul. You can not read just that one verse and expect to reach a full understanding of it in my opinion. You must read the whole Chapter. Thankfully, it isn't one of his longer ones.

Only verses 3 through 16 deal with the subject you are questioning, so it's easier to concentrate on them to see what Paul was saying.

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ isGod.

4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.


In my opinion only I suppose: Paul is discussing the Jewish customs of men and women praying, and whether their heads should be covered or uncovered. I believe (do not know for sure) that this is where the Catholic and some other Churches get their custom of having the woman cover her head when in the Sanctuary. Actually, though, as I read it, the woman only has to have her head covered IF she has hair. If she cuts her hair (shorn), she need not be covered.

Men, on the other hand are to keep their hair "shorn" for it is a shame for him to have long hair. Paul even mentions Nature teaching this, and I have to wonder if he gave this statement a lot of thought prior to writing it. If one looks at Nature, one sees that the male of the species quite often has the longer hair, and not the female. The male is most often the most colorful, and the female the most bland. One clear example is the lion. Male lion has a great mane! Female lion, no. Other examples are common.

In any event, Paul makes it clear he is addressing the "custom" and not declaring a Commandment from God (in my opinion) because he includes the "disclaimer"

[But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.]

Anyway, the idea of a woman not being allowed to cut her hair, and keeping her head covered probably has some foundation in this passage of Scriptures in my opinion.

It is also worth remembering that the Apostle wrote in two distinct but separate styles....

Thus sayeth the Lord! and It would be better that/I would rather that..............

Recognizing which style he is writing in when reading his Epistles helps to determine if he is relating to the Church Commandments from God, or giving the Church his opinion on how to best live a Christ like life. These writings are not Commandments, but guidelines that will allow a believer to have a more rewarding life in Christ...........in my opinion. If you go back and read Chapter 7, you will see that he clearly differentiates between what are his opinions and what are from God.......

As for me and my church, we agree with verse 16. We, the Church of God Reformation Movement, have no such customs.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Hey you guys, I have a quick question.

The quick answer is that Christian women must cover their heads and hide their hair during worship. This has spiritual significance which is rarely taught or explained.

 

[Lanolin]

Jesus hated no one. He hated their evil thoughts and deeds. And the lawyers of his day were not the same as the lawyers of today. You could call them "Torah theologians".

As to lawyers becoming politicians, there should be a ban placed on that practice, since there is a conflict of interest. There should also be strict term limits on politicians and supreme court judges -- no more than two terms, plus the provision to fire them by their constituents for non-performance of their promises. For example, all the RINOs should have been fired for not resolving the Obamacare debacle when they had a chance to do so.

Also, politicians should be barred from making spending decisions. They should be allowed to make recommendations, but there should be an independent body which controls spending, ensures that budget deficits are not allowed, and there is no money borrowed for spending on wasteful programs. Cutting back the compensation of politicians would also increase the funds for more productive spending. Then (hopefully) we would see a totally reformed government. I realize that this is a digression (and also wishful thinking), but no one wants to address their fundamental issues.

Is letter from James 4:11-17 relevant here?

 

[p_rehbein]

Is letter from James 4:11-17 relevant here?

Regarding Lawyers, or hair?

 

[p_rehbein]

With regards to your OP, it is relevant, as it is relevant for all Christians. In my opinion.........

 

[JohnRH]

He really didnt like them, they were in the same category as Pharisees and scribes.

I find it interesting that, when he was arrested, no lawyer came to defend him. Probably they would only do it if they got paid a handsome sum.

This seems kinda weird given that in some circles, lawyers are highly respected and a profession that many people seem to want aspire to?! And it seems half of them decide they dont want to be lawyers after a while and become politicians. The others just go into writing crime novels.

what kind of person really wants to grow up to be...a lawyer? Are there christian lawyers? If so I have never encountered any, and I meet people of all types at church.

Where does the Bible say that Jesus hates lawyers?
For God so loved all lawyers, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whatsoever lawyer believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[garee]

The kind of lawyers Jesus faced were those used to appose the law of God . Called a law of the father, commandments of men . They made God's law without effect .

 

[CharliRenee]

You picked one of the controversial Chapters written by the Apostle Paul. You can not read just that one verse and expect to reach a full understanding of it in my opinion. You must read the whole Chapter. Thankfully, it isn't one of his longer ones.

Only verses 3 through 16 deal with the subject you are questioning, so it's easier to concentrate on them to see what Paul was saying.

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ isGod.

4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.


In my opinion only I suppose: Paul is discussing the Jewish customs of men and women praying, and whether their heads should be covered or uncovered. I believe (do not know for sure) that this is where the Catholic and some other Churches get their custom of having the woman cover her head when in the Sanctuary. Actually, though, as I read it, the woman only has to have her head covered IF she has hair. If she cuts her hair (shorn), she need not be covered.

Men, on the other hand are to keep their hair "shorn" for it is a shame for him to have long hair. Paul even mentions Nature teaching this, and I have to wonder if he gave this statement a lot of thought prior to writing it. If one looks at Nature, one sees that the male of the species quite often has the longer hair, and not the female. The male is most often the most colorful, and the female the most bland. One clear example is the lion. Male lion has a great mane! Female lion, no. Other examples are common.

In any event, Paul makes it clear he is addressing the "custom" and not declaring a Commandment from God (in my opinion) because he includes the "disclaimer"

[But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.]

Anyway, the idea of a woman not being allowed to cut her hair, and keeping her head covered probably has some foundation in this passage of Scriptures in my opinion.

It is also worth remembering that the Apostle wrote in two distinct but separate styles....

Thus sayeth the Lord! and It would be better that/I would rather that..............

Recognizing which style he is writing in when reading his Epistles helps to determine if he is relating to the Church Commandments from God, or giving the Church his opinion on how to best live a Christ like life. These writings are not Commandments, but guidelines that will allow a believer to have a more rewarding life in Christ...........in my opinion. If you go back and read Chapter 7, you will see that he clearly differentiates between what are his opinions and what are from God.......

As for me and my church, we agree with verse 16. We, the Church of God Reformation Movement, have no such customs.

Thank you, that helped me, not sure why I asked that here, derailing my Sister's thread. It had not one thing to do with the OP, tsk tsk. Sorry Lanolin.

 

[garee]

Hey you guys, I have a quick question.

I could start another thread but I thought I'd ask here.

Any thoughts on this verse interpretations?

But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
1 Corinthians 11:5 NASB

It is used as new testament two part ceremonial law used as representative glory that will be fulfilled in the new heavens and earth a sign to the messengers angels who long to look into salivation .The wedding supper of the lamb of God, the consummating of the wedding the veil covering head of the bride is lifted. You could say her first kiss.

The time of reformation had come. The ceremonial laws that spoke of the suffering of Christ before and the glory had come. The old testament shadows had been filled according to that time period used as a parable.

The new cerimoninil law was to remind of the limits put on because the faithless Jews wanted to have a king reining over them. And not God not seen as their King. They refused to walk by faith in their jealousy of the pagan kingdoms. And demanded a king. God gave them over temporally to do what they should not.

Prior to this new testament ceremonial law that speaks of the new freedom. It has all but been destroyed in the name of culture or fashion design . Many today practice the bread and wine a symbol of the wedding supper as 1/2 of the ceremony but treat the head covered, head unconverted as if not there..

Religious Jewish men that are still waiting for Jesus to come the first time make a mockery of that ceremonial law. Having their own heads covered. (Yarmulke) Catholicism wears the same turned upside down hat, serving the upside purpose .The woman's covering or attire. Men are to be uncovered.

Again a reminder the reformation had come...the end of that terrible ceremony that spoke of division between man and woman .

The woman were on one level and could not participate with the men in the ceremonies, A high wall between made it impossible and a lower level with a wall for to divide the gentiles . With the new restored government families men and woman could participate even in mixed marriages, Jew and gentile one big happy family. The walls came tumbling down .

The real women and men (mankind) liberty. . . free to be one.

The world simply loses the picture of the upcoming wedding super of the bride of Christ the church .

 

[CharliRenee]

It is used as new testament two part ceremonial law used as representative glory that will be fulfilled in the new heavens and earth a sign to the messengers angels who long to look into salivation .The wedding supper of the lamb of God, the consummating of the wedding the veil covering head of the bride is lifted. You could say her first kiss.

The time of reformation had come. The ceremonial laws that spoke of the suffering of Christ before and the glory had come. The old testament shadows had been filled according to that time period used as a parable.

The new cerimoninil law was to remind of the limits put on because the faithless Jews wanted to have a king reining over them. And not God not seen as their King. They refused to walk by faith in their jealousy of the pagan kingdoms. And demanded a king. God gave them over temporally to do what they should not.

Prior to this new testament ceremonial law that speaks of the new freedom. It has all but been destroyed in the name of culture or fashion design . Many today practice the bread and wine a symbol of the wedding supper as 1/2 of the ceremony but treat the head covered, head unconverted as if not there..

Religious Jewish men that are still waiting for Jesus to come the first time make a mockery of that ceremonial law. Having their own heads covered. (Yarmulke) Catholicism wears the same turned upside down hat, serving the upside purpose .The woman's covering or attire. Men are to be uncovered.

Again a reminder the reformation had come...the end of that terrible ceremony that spoke of division between man and woman .

The woman were on one level and could not participate with the men in the ceremonies, A high wall between made it impossible and a lower level with a wall for to divide the gentiles . With the new restored government families men and woman could participate even in mixed marriages, Jew and gentile one big happy family. The walls came tumbling down .

The real women and men (mankind) liberty. . . free to be one.

The world simply loses the picture of the upcoming wedding super of the bride of Christ the church .

Very interesting, and so very exciting and hopeful...thank you.

 

[FollowHisSteps]

He really didnt like them, they were in the same category as Pharisees and scribes.

I find it interesting that, when he was arrested, no lawyer came to defend him. Probably they would only do it if they got paid a handsome sum.

This seems kinda weird given that in some circles, lawyers are highly respected and a profession that many people seem to want aspire to?! And it seems half of them decide they dont want to be lawyers after a while and become politicians. The others just go into writing crime novels.

what kind of person really wants to grow up to be...a lawyer? Are there christian lawyers? If so I have never encountered any, and I meet people of all types at church.

Jesus's trial was a kangaroo court held in the middle of the night.
The powerful people saw him maybe 11pm - 12 midnight.
He was transferred from the temple court to the court of Herod, to the romans.
In the morning after Jesus had been flogged around 7 am the question of setting him free was
raised. He was not found guilty of anything, but was put with those ready to be executed.

All the lawyers and defenders of Jesus were asleep. The whole process was to be completed before
anyone really knew what was going on. Once he was crucified, 9.00 am it was all too late.

Jesus had no problem with lawyers just hypocrites. The lawyers understood the law but did not
follow it. Their hearts were full of greed and self indulgence with no love for mercy, faithfullness
or justice as demonstrated by Jesus's own death, they just loved power.

You cannot have justice without lawyers, people to rightly argue the law and interpret it.
So we cannot make lawyers evil, or else there is no one to tell us how to apply the law and what
is just and what is unjust. It is here the Lords heart is, that justice and His rule might prosper.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Is letter from James 4:11-17 relevant here?

Not sure how this would be relevant. James is addressing Christians and telling them to not speak ill of their brethren or judge their brothers. This would be in the context of a local church where the Christians know each other.