Complimentary Story
Paul Graham, an English computer scientist, well-known for his influence in computer language programming, penned an essay in March 2008 entitled “How to Disagree.” This article confidently defends the notion that disagreements are decidedly beneficial to any conversation as they create additional dialogue, provide underlying motivations for people, and discover new outlets to the respective topic not yet explored. Ultimately, Graham, postulates, it will not only “make conversations better, it will make the people who have them happier.” But, his overall proposition has less to do with the practicality of disagreements as it does with their delivery. Because despite the result, the increase in debate could lead to an inevitable escalation in anger throughout the process, especially in a passionate world where the changing methods of communication make it possible to argue with someone without ever having to meet them face to face. To help ensure civil and constructive deliberations between sides, Graham considered it necessary to generate, what he refers to as, a disagreement hierarchy, wherein he establishes levels of productive disagreement methods in order of least to most effective. At the bottom, the most common, yet fruitless form — name-calling.Enter John the Baptist. The gospels describe John’s existence as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in that God would send a “messenger” ahead of Jesus to “make straight paths for Him,” to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord,” and to “bear witness…so that through him everyone might believe.” John the Baptist had one purpose: prepare the way of the Lord. People would come from all around to confess their sins and be baptized in the Jordan River at the hands of this unique man, which led, of course, to the piqued interest of the always controversial Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees were protectors of the Law, keepers of tradition, and defenders of ritual. They received the general favor of the common people, for reasons both socially and spiritually motivated, though their strict dedication to the law often resulted in publicly disgracing and shunning sinners. The Sadducees, on the other hand, held elite economic and political status in the Jewish population, which inevitably furnished them with a precarious social position. They were primarily responsible for preserving and maintaining the Temple in Jerusalem and frequently presided over numerous affairs of state. Within these responsibilities, they were often given authority to perform many of the tasks of the priests, such as performing sacrifices, but also to regulate Jewish political affairs, like collecting taxes or managing foreign relations. The believed, deeply, in the Torah, and that its narrative was foundational and sacred for Jewish culture.
As Matthew records, John discharged a vicious slur against these religious leaders during one of his baptismal sessions in the Jordan River: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 3:7-10).
The force of this affront retains a significance that often escapes contemporary understanding. In ancient cultures, the symbolism regarding serpents had various meanings. In Egypt, for example, snakes were often worshipped as gods and could epitomize elements on both ends of the spectrum of good and evil, representing wisdom, cunning, death, and most importantly, power. The Bible, however, seems to present the serpent in a somewhat ambiguous light. Because of the insidious actions of the serpent in the Garden of Eden and God’s resulting curse, Christians link this animal with having a devious, deceptive nature. But God also used the snake as a symbol of power and authority when Moses demanded that Pharaoh release the Israelites. Likewise, Jesus instructed His disciples to be “wise as serpents” in the New Testament. Many are highly aggressive and venomous, quick to strike, and calculating. They slither in hiding and stealth, able to strike seamlessly at any moment, without warning, with a potentially painful and fatal bite. However, the inherently, ambivalent traits of a serpent make it easy for symbolic association with being under-handed, deceptive, and poisonous in word or action.
Biblical scholars have noted that “brood” is a contemporary synonym for “offspring” or “generation,” with the focus being on lineage. They associate the translation of “offspring” with a child from an illegitimate union and offer the phrase “snake-bastards” as a more accurate rendition of the substance of his insult. In Mediterranean culture, honor was the definitive attribute for identifying where one’s family stood in the hierarchy of society. One’s place in the world, even from birth, was defined by one’s genealogy, so with a status-based culture came some predisposed designations. One such classification was “ascribed honor” – a quality bestowed upon a person at the time of their birth that determined their individual rank derived from the reputation of one’s family. If your family held a low position in society, you received no “ascribed honor,” and it was assumed that you would amount to nothing. Imagine, then, if everyone in the village knew that you were born out of disunion and labeled as illegitimate? You would be outcast.
Richard Rohrbraugh, a qualified anthropologist, has concluded that John’s insult is literally translated as “illegitimate son of a snake,” which he points out would be the “Mediterranean equivalent of a dirty mouth.” For an average person in this culture, John’s affront would be a direct assault on everything that represents their being and pedigree – the very factors that define who they are and where they came from - a scorching indictment. The reference to their illegitimacy is one of spiritual depth; they might be outwardly religious, but inwardly, they are separated from God. John is simply calling them what they are, but he also needed an expression to amplify the point. The significance is that John made a very public, confident, and forceful stance against behavior that he knew to be wrong and a detriment to the progression of God’s kingdom.
As Matthew Poole wrote: “true repentance is not a barren thing…you must bring forth the fruits of holiness, fruits that may answer the nature of true repentance.” John did not seek out sinners to embarrass, degrade, or condemn. Sin came to John; he was not searching for it. But, when it found him, he did not cower before it. He did not excuse it. He did not re-interpret Scripture to justify it. When it found him, he looked it in the eye and demonstrated to his listeners that it would lead to destruction. We do not need to seek out sin in others for purposes of rebuke; but if it confronts us, we need to remember that those wages lead to death. We need to be more like John.
