CONTRARY OPINIONS 2

Yesterday I posted my agreement with the following Bertrand Russell quote:

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction."

In response, someone posted the following question:

"How does that fit with Mark 3:4-5? The Pharisees had no good reason to think as they did, but Jesus was angry at them because of their hardness of heart."

Here's Mark 3:1-6 -

1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. 2 And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” 4 And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. 5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.

This is interesting in so many ways.

First, the preceding story (the same Sabbath morning?) has the Pharisees complaining to Jesus about his disciples picking grain to eat. And Jesus calmly reminds them of what David's men did in Old Testament times and then says simply, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." 

Jesus doesn't get mad here. Bertrand Russell would approve.

But in Mark Chapter 3, the Pharisees never openly state their opinion that Jesus should not be healing on the Sabbath - although Jesus gives them the opportunity.

Instead, they are lurking about, hoping that Jesus would heal the man with the withered hand ... "so that they might accuse Him". 

It is the Pharisees who demonstrate the truth of what Russell claims: they are angry with Jesus - murderous, even - with no good reason.

On the other hand, when Jesus gets angry with the Pharisees, I doubt that it's specifically because they hold an opinion opposite His. Wouldn't His anger more likely stem from:

• Their sneakiness?
• Their spinelessness?
• The fact they are trying to "destroy" Him?
• Their hardness of heart?
• Their influence as religious experts among the people?
• Their role in teaching others?

Besides, Jesus is kind of a special case. His anger is always righteous. Our anger typically does more harm than good. 

So I still think Russell is right (to whatever extent generalizations can be considered to be "right") and my anger - when I feel it rise - can serve a good purpose if it causes me to pause and consider whether or not I have good reasons for believing what I believe. 

The Pharisees definitely should have paused.