The End Back Then, Part 5: Be Ready

'
Background
A long time ago, Jesus was asked the questions which are on the minds of many believers even today: what would be the signs indicating His return, Judgement Day, and the end of the world. He warned of upcoming false Messiahs, wars, and disasters. He explained that His disciples would become witnesses to the world. He described the event which would be the most horrendous in all of history, before or after; the Siege of Jerusalem. That terrifying tribulation was promised to soon yield the His return and a powerful judgement on all mankind.

This is Part 5 of a five part series entitled "The End Back Then." The series entries are:

• Part 1: Rumors of Wars
• Part 2: Worldwide Witness
• Part 3: Temple Tragedy
• Part 4: Jesus' Return
• Part 5: Be Ready

The End Back Then, Part 5: Be Ready

Can you imagine the utter ecstasy faithful Christians will have the day that their Savior, Jesus Christ, returns? The God that they love more than any person in the world will come for them, and Jesus, who loved them enough to sacrifice His own life for them, will be overjoyed to finally destroy the metaphysical barriers keeping them from living together happily ever after. Should you be on guard for such a joyous occasion? We will find the answer to that question in our study.

Matthew 24:32-51, Mark 13:28-37, and Luke 21:29-36 (plus Luke 17:26-35) further suggest an imminent Judgement Day way back then, but emphasize being prepared for the Second Coming. So we find in Matthew 24:32-33, and similarly in Mark 13:28-29 and Luke 21:29-31, Jesus saying:

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that [the Kingdom of God] is near, right at the door." NIV

You see the tender twigs, summer is near. You see "all these things" (contextually false messiahs, the wars, war rumors, natural disasters, the Gospel preached in the [known] world, and the siege of Jerusalem), then the Kingdom of God is "right at the door." We all know about how long it takes to enter the threshold of a door. It does not take about 2000 years.

The final nail in the prophesy-timing-failure coffin is recorded identically in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 from Jesus' own mouth:

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." NIV

As we saw in the previous study, Jesus' Second Coming was part of "all these things" which were described. The generation living at that time has long since turned to dust, but we are still waiting for Jesus to deliver us. Well, some of us are, anyway. ;-)

You should be aware that there is some disagreement among scholars as to what is meant by "this generation." As we saw in the previous study, John Gill did not think that Matthew had been referring literally to the Second Coming of Jesus, so here he would essentially, and ironically, agree with me, saying posthumously:

"...it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; ... and must, since all these things had their accomplishment, in and about forty years after this..."

However, the word interpreted as "generation" here can also refer to "a people," so the scholars who instead agree with me that Matthew had previously described Jesus' return, such as John Darby, suggest alternately that the generation not passing away means something like things like:

"Unbelieving Jews should exist, as such, until all was accomplished."

So there you can see cognitive biases in two different polarities, and yet both are used to preserve their versions of the same truths. It is not the Bible that has contradictions; rather it is the Bible interpretations which are in contradiction. ;-) Each one drifts from the more obvious, more literal meaning, because to believe the words as they are written would mean either that God had failed to keep His word or that Jesus was not as advertised. Either option is unconscionable for the devoutly committed believer.

Moving on, Jesus said that His words would never pass away (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33), which is essentially just a promise from Jesus/God that this prophesy would indeed come to pass exactly as described. But it has not gone according to plan...

Jesus then went on to explain how only God, the Father, knows when the exact day and hour will initiate Judgement Day and establish the Kingdom of God (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32). This is quite interesting, because it is an explicit differentiation between God the Father and Jesus. Jesus does not know something that God does know. That would seem impossible if Jesus was also God, so this verse (among others) has been used by those sects which claim that Jesus was not divine, or that Jesus was a creation of God instead of being part of God.

From there, the three accounts diverge a little in content, but focus on the same overall message: be vigilantly watchful for Jesus' return. Mark 13:33 puts it as:

"Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come." NIV

Now if you subscribe to any of the modern mainstream Christian teachings, this is a really dissonant verse. Modern Christianity harps on having a close, personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who is abounding with forgiveness and love. But if that is the case, why would you need to be "on guard" for when He shows up? What real close, personal friendship do you have with anyone in which you have to be on guard for when they show up, other than perhaps a sparring partner? The call for being on guard is because this is not a message of reconciliation and love, but rather a message of potential punishment and fear.

Mark 13:34-37 continues on with a parable about a master who left a servant in charge of his house, and how that master had better not find the servant sleeping, implicitly due to the punishment to be rendered. And with the parable portraying a master who goes away, how can you have a personal relationship with someone who is gone? (Mind you, this is before Facebook and cell phones, or even the post office.) Jesus never intended to have a close, personal relationship with anyone in this life, which is the reason for this warning about drifting from the faith. Matthew 24:42-51 has an "enhanced" version of this same parable, where the master will take such a deviant servant and "cut him to pieces."

Matthew 24:37-41 plays expands this theme of judgement, likening Jesus' return with the Flood of Noah. Just like the Flood, Judgement Day would come unexpectedly (despite all of the signs previously noted).

Luke 17:26-27 draws that same Flood comparison, but Luke 17:28-31 goes further in judgement references by citing the destruction of Sodom as a similar, unexpected, disastrous event. Luke 17:32-35 goes further still, reminding Jesus' followers that if they do not forsake this life, they will lose the eternal one. Punishment will come with Jesus, so be ready, or else...

And for anyone who still thinks that I err, and that this whole series has nothing to do with the Second Coming, the parallel of Luke 21:34-36 should dispel that notion:

"Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man." NIV

So what have we discovered in this series?

The timing is explicit: The fruition of these signs would occur in close proximity to the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, though the precise day was unknown.

The scope is defined: These signs would ultimately herald in Jesus' Second Coming, Judgement Day, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God.

The failure is obvious: The Siege of Jerusalem did happen, but it did not usher in Judgement Day, Jesus' return, or the Kingdom of God. And that siege certainly was not the worst event in human history.

The way that Jesus ends this prophesy is significant. It is not with flowery words about how He will be looking forward to rejoining the love of His faithful followers, and bemoaning the losses of those who just would not yield to the light. It is a message of fear. It is a warning that they (Jesus' own followers) had better keep their act together, or else they would be severely punished. There is no hint of God's grace here at all.

It is funny that you do not commonly hear that message from the pulpit.

By Prayer and Fasting

'
Background
Jesus took Peter, James, and John up on a mountain, where He then experienced the Transfiguration. There, Moses and Elijah showed up, speaking with Jesus in His transfigured state. Moses and Elijah departed, and then Jesus and the three Disciples walked back down the mountain, with Jesus explaining along the way that just as the Teachers of the Law had said, Elijah would come before the Messiah, and he already had come. John the Baptist was Elijah.

By Prayer and Fasting

Fasting is one of those oddities common in many faiths. In the Bible, fasting is mentioned around 65 times. There is no command, law, ordinance, or recommendation to fast in God's Law, the Torah. However, the Torah does record the first person in the Bible to have fasted.

According to Deuteronomy 9:7-29, Moses fasted two, or possibly three, times. The first time, he (and possibly Joshua) fasted for forty days when while preparing the first set of God's stone tablet commandments (Exodus 24:12-18). The second time, after having destroyed the stone tablets when he found the Israelites worshiping a Golden Cow, Moses (alone this time) fasted for another forty days to get the second set of tablets from God (which had the Biblical, not the popular, version of the Ten Commandments, Exodus 34:1-28). The third time is implicit, when, for yet another forty days (according only to the Deuteronomy account), Moses laid facedown praying to God to prevent Him from slaughtering all of the Israelites because they had been frightened by the native inhabitants of the Promised Land (Numbers 14).

Despite the lack of a legal compulsion, the example set by Moses was enough to inspire the Priests to incorporate fasting into their standardized religious tool bag, even to the point of making it ritualistic, such as including fasts for the Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Av holidays, among others times. Without God's backing in the Torah, these fasts could have been considered nothing more than traditions taught by men, the kind of thing Jesus was allegedly opposed to. Yet the tradition was meaningful enough to garner God's explicit backing later in the Old Testament, such as in Joel 2:12.

By the time Jesus showed up, He Himself fasted for (you guessed it) forty days (Matthew 4:2, Luke 4:2), provided instructions for fasting (Matthew 6:16-18), and, when questioned about it, said that His followers would fast when He was gone (Matthew 9:14-15, Mark 2:18-20, Luke 5:33-35). Jesus mentions fasting later in the Gospel story too... maybe... as we will see in this study.

Matthew 17:14-21, Mark 9:14-29, and Luke 9:37-43 all record the story of how, after coming down the mountain from the Transfiguration event, Jesus exorcised a demon from a boy, who had symptoms which are very reminiscent of epileptic seizures.

Before Jesus had arrived with Peter, James, and John, the other nine Disciples had tried to exorcise the demon, but were unsuccessful (Matthew 17:16, Mark 9:18, Luke 9:40). Jesus' response to this failure is nearly identical across Matthew 17:17, Mark 9:19, and Luke 9:41. In Matthew 17:17 we find:

"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to Me." NIV

Feel-good Christians often try to portray Jesus as overflowing with love and compassion, but what we find here is a cranky Jesus who is tired of dealing with people. This is the Jesus for the service industry workers, just doing His job until He can punch out on the eternal time clock and get back to really living.

You might think that, having this shared verse, the three accounts would be nearly identical, but they are not. The skeleton of the story is the same, but each author has a distinct twist. We will explore some of the finer differences in the later "Textual Analysis" section, but there are some big oddities to cover first.

Let us start with Mark 9:15, which tells us that when Jesus came down from the mountain to the crowd:

As soon as all the people saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with wonder and ran to greet Him. NIV

Now, why would the people be "overwhelmed with wonder," or, as other translations say, "greatly amazed" when they saw Jesus? Nowhere in the Gospels is anyone amazed by Jesus simply showing up, but rather they were amazed by what He did and what He said. The implication here is that there was something special, something wondrously strange, about the way Jesus looked.

It appears that Mark is relaying that the actual Transfiguration of Jesus endured beyond His time on the mountaintop. If you remember from Mark 9:2-3, the only specific transfiguration mentioned was that Jesus' "clothes became dazzling white." It was Matthew and Luke who made Jesus literally shine. So it appears that the crowd was just impressed with how white Jesus got His whites. Interestingly, Matthew and Luke do not mention the crowd being amazed when they saw Jesus.

(By the way, none of the Transfiguration accounts mention when [if ever] Jesus, or His clothing, changed back to normal.)

The next point to mention happens after Jesus expels the demon from the boy. According to Matthew 17:19 and Mark 9:28, the Disciples asked Jesus why they had had such trouble exorcizing this demon themselves. That certainly seems like a good question and good information to record, so that they (and future followers) could be better prepared for future demonic encounters. However, Luke, the Editor, crops that question and its answer out of his account. That seems more than a little odd, unless Luke did not like Jesus' answer, which brings us to our final point before the deeper textual analysis.

Depending on which manuscripts you read, or which version of the Bible you have, Mark 9:29 has Jesus reply that this kind of demon can only be expelled either "by prayer" or "by prayer and fasting." In my opinion, the omission of "and fasting" was probably a scribal error, which then had some subsequent propagation. One of the oldest extant Mark manuscripts, P45, includes "and fasting."

Jesus' reply in Matthew 17:20 to the Disciples is that they failed because of their weak faith (despite them having performed exorcisms before according to Mark 6:13). Depending on which resource you have, Matthew's version of Jesus' reply continues on with Matthew 17:21, which goes on to agree with Mark 9:29 that this particular kind of demon requires "prayer and fasting" to expel. In my opinion, Matthew 17:21 is more likely to be a legitimate verse mistakenly or purposefully omitted by scribes in some manuscripts than for it to be the later addition of a scribe. (There is more discussion on this topic below.)

So, let us "take it on faith" that prayer and fasting were required for the exorcism of these kinds of demons. The big question is why? Perhaps this type of demon was extra powerful. So what? Were the Disciples exorcising demons from their own power, or was it through God's power instead? While it was the Disciples who were making the requests for the exorcisms, clearly this power comes from God. Even the need for prayer and fasting speaks of this arrangement, as these are solicitations of God's power.

If that is the case, given that the Disciple were free to use God's power to exorcise demons, why would they then need a hunger strike and a little divine conversation for God to use His power to do the exact same thing in special cases? It really makes no sense. I mean, God would want them to perform these exorcisms, right? Would there really ever be a case where God would want to leave a demon in someone, especially if it was a strong demon? No, not if God is good. So adding this prerequisite is contrary to logic.

Besides that, Jesus had no problem exorcising the demon, and yet there is no indication that He had prayed or fasted in order to do so. Obviously, there is no need for prayer and fasting to exorcise strong demons. Perhaps this inconsistency is why Luke opted to edit out this little snippet of dialog, preferring instead to leave the Disciple's inability to exorcise the demon as a mystery.

Extra Credit - Textual Analysis
In the previous study, I suggested that the Synoptic Gospel authors shared some resources, but these resources were earlier revisions than the ones we have in the Bible today. This section of text contains evidence supporting that theory.

Below you will see a color coded textual analysis. Mark is in the left column, followed by Matthew, and then Luke. Bold black text is unique material to that particular account. Orange text is shared across all three accounts. Blue is shared by Matthew and Mark. Red is shared by Luke and Mark. Brown is shared only by Matthew and Luke.

Two things are immediately obvious: Mark's account is much longer, and, correspondingly, Mark's account has much more unique material. That is not too unusual for Mark. We have seen cases where Matthew and Luke whittle down Mark's account before, such as in the beheading of John the Baptist.

Another interesting observation is the amount of red and blue. We see that Matthew has borrowed from Mark, and we see that Luke has borrowed from Mark, not Matthew, and they each focused on different parts of Mark's story.

So what is unique to Mark? Primarily two things, aside from the implicit reference to the Transfiguration noted above.

One is that Mark begins the scene with an argument involving the Teachers of the Law (Mark 9:14-16). It is not too surprising that Matthew and Luke would have excluded this detail. It adds nothing significant to the story, other than to point out one more time that their little group often had confrontations the Teachers of the Law.

The other is that Jesus had an extended dialog with the boy's father (Mark 9:21-27). The strange part there is that the father asks Jesus to help "if you can." In Mark 9:23, Jesus mocked him by repeating those words to him, and said that anything is possible for those who believe. The mocking may have seemed a little too harsh for Matthew and Luke, justifying their omission of it. However, it seems that Matthew may have reformatted the topic, as we will see in a moment. Another notable part of this dialog is the father's paradoxical reply in Mark 9:24: "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!" It is no surprise that Matthew and Luke dropped that peculiar statement.

One final, minor uniqueness to point out in Mark is that Jesus identified that this was a "deaf and mute spirit," as in a spirit which causes deafness and the inability to speak, but there is nowhere else in any of the accounts that it mentions that the boy is deaf. In fact, Mark is the only Gospel to ever mention Jesus healing a person who was both deaf and mute, and he does so twice; both here and in Mark 7:31-37.

On to Matthew. There are two primary unique points to Matthew as well.

The first is that Matthew 17:14-15 presents the boy's father with more humility and recognition of Jesus' identity: he kneels before Jesus and calls Him "Lord."

The second is Matthew 17:20, as noted above, which states that the/a reason that the Disciples could not expel the demon was because of their lack of faith, and that if they had just a little faith, they could move mountains. This message is similar in essence to what Jesus tells the father in Mark's version, plus it ties in with Jesus' earlier complaint about this "unbelieving" generation. It is easy to see the origin of Matthew's words, too, as we see a similar mountain-moving statement in Mark 11:23 (and its parallel in Matthew 21:21). That is to say, faith-moving-mountains was already part of the Jesus' story, providing a source for Matthew to copy-and paste-this blurb here.

Luke has nothing significant in its unique material. Rather, his omission of the Disciples asking why they had failed is the most notable aspect of his account.

Closing out this analysis, at the beginning of this section I stated that there was evidence supporting a the sharing of earlier revisions of source material, and it is time to deliver that evidence. Jumping back to the verse where Jesus whined about having to put up with people, the Mark 9:19 we have today has Jesus calling those people an "unbelieving generation." However, both Matthew 17:17 and Luke 9:41 record that Jesus called them an "unbelieving and perverse generation." This is the only spot where Matthew and Luke share information which is not in Mark in this anecdote. Also, as noted earlier, it appears that both Matthew and Luke drew from Mark as a resource here, but not from each other. The reasonable conclusion is that they were drawing from some version of Mark which also had that "perversion." However, either through scribal error, or through intentional editing (given that this scene does not portray anything perverse about these people, who had come to Jesus looking for divine help), the version of Mark we have today omits this reprimand.

The Shepherd and the Gate Are One

'
Background
We are continuing on the Gospel of John, following the anecdote where Jesus had healed a blind man by rubbing mud, made from Jesus' spit, on the blind man's eyes on a Sabbath day. Eventually, when the man was brought before the local Pharisees, the Pharisees launched an investigation into the matter, but eventually ended up throwing the ex-blind man out of their synagogue after he had mocked them. Jesus later met up with the ex-blind man, who then worshiped Jesus.

The Shepherd and the Gate Are One

Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so, but does God the Father love Jesus? Yes, of course, and the Bible tells us that also. Do you know what else? The Bible tells us why God, the Father, loves Jesus, and that is pretty special. We will see the reason for His love, and some other "special" reasoning, as we cover another passage of John.

We will start at the end of a chapter, John 9:39-41. Immediately after a formerly blind man started worshiping Jesus, Jesus spoke. Where Jesus was and to whom He was speaking is unknown, but we do know that He was speaking about some metaphorically blind Pharisees, among others, when according to John 9:39:

Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." NIV

With this statement, you can see Jesus' purpose. He was coming with both Salvation and condemnation simultaneously. He was to make those who think that they already know God (those who think that they "see") "blind," thereby binding them in their sins. At the same time, He was to help the "blind," which, by implicit contrast, were those people who did not think that they knew God. As the chapter concludes, Jesus condemns the Pharisees because they claim that they see the truth. This is an important concept, because, contrary to what some Christians believe, Jesus did not want to save everyone.

The next chapter seems to continue this same discourse up to John 10:19-21, ending with the Jews having mixed opinions about Jesus after hearing Him speak. Some Jews cite, as a defense for Him, that He obviously cannot be demon-possessed because He has made blind men see (as in literal blindness, and literal seeing, unlike metaphorical John 9:39 mentioned above; a reference to Jesus healing the blind man in the previous chapter).

In between the above mentioned "book ends" is a series of metaphorical allegories. These type of allegories are the closest things that you will find in the Gospel of John to the parables you see in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Unlike in the Synoptic Gospels, where Jesus used parables to prevent people from understanding, in John, Jesus used allegories to help explain things to whom He was speaking. So let us take a look at what He was trying to say.

John 10:1-6 sets the stage. Jesus told them that a shepherd will go into the sheep pen by the gate, but thieves jump the fence instead. The watchman opens the gate for the shepherd. The sheep will only be led out by their shepherd because they only recognize the shepherd's voice. Got it? Good, because hereafter Jesus explained what He meant by this.

In John 10:7-10, we discover that Jesus is the gate for the sheep, and whoever enters through that gate will be Saved, coming in and going out to the pasture of abundant life. Everyone who came before Jesus was a thief, bent on destruction, but Jesus' sheep did not listen to them.

Let us reflect on this explanation. When we refer to entering a gate, we imply entering some enclosure of property. So the sheep in the pen have presumably already entered the gate, and, in turn, are already saved. This is the doctrine of predestined Salvation, the Elect. There is no clarification of the watchman who opens the gate, either here or later. At best, we could assume that this was supposed to be John the Baptist. Yet we have that enigmatic statement, that "[a]ll who ever came before" Jesus were thieves. John the Baptist started his ministry prior to Jesus, so was he a thief? Even if we do not include John the Baptist, what about all of the prophets; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc.? That does not add up either, so by "all" it seems that Jesus meant some. That "some" possibly referred to the other false Messiahs which had sprung up in those times, and perhaps even extended to pagan oracles.

That brings us to another important point to touch on: One of the defenses sometimes used by Christians is that it is unlikely that Jesus and/or the Disciples would have created a false religious movement because of the great personal risk involved. Yet there were other false Messiahs who did just that, both before and after Jesus.

Anyway, Jesus continued His explanation in John 10:11-13, where He said that He was the "Good Shepherd" who lays down His life for the sheep, unlike a hired hand who would abandon the sheep when a wolf attacked, scattering the flock. Yet this is an odd distortion of what a good shepherd does. A good shepherd is one who protects the flock (ideally by killing off wolves who threaten the sheep to help prevent future threats), not one who lays down his life. We would not expect a shepherd to go to the wolf and say "hey, wolfy, eat me instead of the sheep." A dead shepherd is worth nothing to the flock. Contrast that with a shepherd who instead constantly and perfectly protects his sheep. Which of these two shepherds would really be "good?" Which type of shepherd is Jesus?

Jesus built on that same theme as He continued in John 10:14-18: He repeated that He was the Good Shepherd and that His sheep know Him, just like He knows God, the Father. He also said that there were other sheep not of this pen (implicitly the Gentile "sheep") who Jesus would gather and unite with these sheep into one common flock. Also, God, the Father, loved Jesus because He would lay down His life, and then take it up again, which Jesus would do under His own authority.

Wait, why does God love Jesus? Let us look at the actual words in John 10:17-18

"The reason My Father loves Me is that I lay down My life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from My Father." NIV

God loves Jesus because He will do what He is told to do, voluntarily. But how could Jesus do anything other than the will of God if He is part of God? This is akin to you loving your toes, because they always wiggle when you want them to wiggle, for Jesus had no real choice or desire to do other than what God commanded. Furthermore, God is commanding Jesus to do and undo that which Jesus Himself can both do and undo, which makes it not particularly special. It is like if someone had commanded you to give all of your money to Fred, with full knowledge that you could take your money back from Fred at any time.

Summing all of this up: Jesus leads people to or keeps people from Salvation in the roles of both gate and shepherd. Those who are saved were destined to be saved, and they know His voice. God loves Jesus because He does what He is told, even though He really does not have a choice. Well isn't that special?

Blind Hearsay

'
Background
We are following the Gospel of John, where recently Jesus had a discussion with some Jews on the Temple grounds of Jerusalem. Many of these Jews had put their faith in Jesus, but Jesus told them that they that they were trying to kill Him, and that they could not understand Him because they were the children of the Devil. At this, those Jews changed their minds, and thought that Jesus was a crazy heretic. As Jesus continued, He claimed that He had seen Abraham, and that He was part of God. The Jews had heard enough, and picked up stones to kill Him, but He slipped away unscathed.

Blind Hearsay

Hearsay is testimony given by someone who has no first-hand knowledge of the event. It is normally inadmissible as evidence in court, because often it cannot be easily verified. Hearsay is not necessarily wrong. Historians make a career out of hearsay, but a credible historian has an obligation to reveal the source of that hearsay. This practice facilitates discerning the truth, or at least a version of truth based on best available information. Accordingly, there should be some caution regarding historical unsupported hearsay, even in sacred texts. All of the Gospels include some unsupported hearsay, such as the details around Jesus' birth and John the Baptist's beheading, and the Gospel of John is no exception.

The entire chapter of John 9 is centered on a man who was blind from birth, up until Jesus intervened. Before we get to the hearsay, the story begins with a fascinating revelation in John 9:1-3:

As [Jesus] went along, He saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life." NIV

You may be wondering how Jesus' disciples could have come up with such a crazy idea: that this man was blind because of sin; either his own sin (which would have necessarily happened after his birth) or that of his parents. Well, to them it was not a crazy idea, but rather a fact of life.

As we covered in a study of Leviticus, according to God's Law, if you became sick (or if your house got mildew), it was due to your sins. It is a short logical distance to lump blindness together with other sin-caused sicknesses, provided that it had not been cause by demon-possession. (But, hey, this is the Gospel of John we are talking about, which never mentions Jesus casting out any demons, so we know that demon-possession would not be the case here!)

Also, with regard to the punishment of the parent's sins being applied to the child, God promised to punish subsequent generations if the parents worshiped idols (Exodus 20:4-6). This line of thought extended far beyond that one divine commandment, such that Ezekiel 18:2 tells us that the Jews had a generalized proverb that "parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge."

Notice that in Jesus' reply, He did not correct their line of thinking in general, but rather addressed this specific case, telling them that this man was born blind to make manifest the work of God. This implicitly means that God made this man blind from birth. As Exodus 4:11 tells us, it is God who makes people deaf, dumb, or blind, but that is not the "work of God" Jesus is referring to.

As the story continues, Jesus claimed that we must do God's work while we have daylight, and He was that daylight, but night is coming. So Jesus made some mud with His spit, rubbed it on the blind man's eyes, and then told him to wash off the magic spit-mud at a certain pool in the city. The man did what he was told, and he gained his vision (John 9:4-7).

So the "work of God" was to give this blind man sight, thereby displaying God's good powers. From the eyes of the pious, this makes some sense, but an outsider cannot help but be appalled by it. Why? Well, imagine a king who had locked up a baby in his dungeon on the day that it was born, with the king planning to release the baby after twenty or so years in order to prove that he was a good and powerful king. Such is the case with this man's blindness.

Now, about that hearsay problem. Jesus did not send a disciple with the blind man to verify that he went to that pool and got his sight back, but that is no problem to explain, because Jesus would later meet up with this man, and the man would actually see Jesus for the first time, and worship Him (John 9:35-38). That implies that the man did what he was told.

The real hearsay issue is what happened after the blind man washed off the spit-mud and got his sight, up until when Jesus finds him again. In that time gap, John records that the man is doubted by his neighbors, who then take him in front of the Pharisees, who then get angry because Jesus had healed this man on a Sabbath and, in turn, they launch an investigation which included questioning of the man's parents. The tall tale ends with the ex-blind man mocking the Pharisees for their lack of discernment and him being thrown out of the synagogue for that mocking (John 9:8-34). All of these details are fully fleshed out beyond measure of a second-hand telling, replete with recorded dialog. Yet there are no disciple witnesses, and when Jesus does meet with the ex-blind man again later, there is no mention of the man recounting this "history."

If that level of voluminous hearsay is not enough to cast some doubt on its veracity, perhaps you need only look within it to find an intrinsic inconsistency (which is very characteristic of the Gospel of John) to arouse some suspicion. When the Pharisees tell the ex-blind man that they know that Jesus is a sinner, the man replies that he does not know whether or not Jesus is a sinner (John 9:24-25). Contrast this to later in the story in John 9:30-33, when that same man mocks those same Pharisees for not realizing that Jesus must be sinless to work that kind of a miracle.

Or, if that internal contradiction is not enough to cast doubt, consider John 9:29, where the Pharisees claim that they do not know where Jesus comes from. Yet in John 3:2, Pharisees considered Jesus to be a man from God, and in John 6:42 and John 7:27, the Jews knew Jesus' family and hometown.

I dare say, these issues make it worthy of reconsidering the truth that you think you know.

Toss It to Their Dogs

'
Background
We have come to a point in the Gospel storyline where Matthew and Mark continue on alone for a little while. Jesus fed the five thousand men, plus others, and then walked on water to meet His disciples on the Sea of Galilee. This was followed by a confrontation with some traveling Pharisees over hand-washing, where Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for teaching contrary to God's Law, only for Jesus to give His own teaching which was contrary to God's Law regarding being clean and unclean.

Toss It to Their Dogs

Jesus is often portrayed as being humble, merciful, and generous; assuming a lowly position, opting not to condemn but rather save, and healing all who came to Him. It is a nice picture, but it is not the whole story. There are other, more controversial, aspects which crop up as you explore the Gospels in their entirety. Take, for example, the episode where Jesus is approached by a Canaanite.

Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30 record a journey of Jesus into the region of Tyre and Sidon, coastline cities to the north of Israel. Allow me to repeat that for emphasis, this is outside of Israel. Why is Jesus outside of Israel? Well, Mark, the earlier-written of the two Gospels, seems to imply that Jesus either on the run, or was looking for a little private relaxation, because Mark 7:24 reveals that Jesus was trying to keep His presence there a secret. Matthew did not want his version of the Messiah sneaking around, so he left off the secrecy in Matthew 15:21, which also leaves off any kind of indication of why Jesus would go there.

I know. Right now you are thinking: "You Fool, Jesus was sent to the Jews and the Gentiles. That is why He was there." Is that so? Hmm. Let us see what Jesus has to say about that a little later.

Despite the secrecy of Jesus' visit, or lack thereof, news of His presence spreads. This was Jesus' first recorded visit to the region, but supposedly His fame had already reached the region and had earlier enticed some of its denizens to go see Jesus while He was in the region of Galilee (Mark 3:8, Luke 6:17). So, naturally large crowds gathered... No. Wait. Just one woman. One woman came to see Jesus while He was there, because she had a demon-possessed daughter. She begged Jesus to help her daughter (Matthew 15:22, Mark 7:25-26).

Naturally, you would expect Jesus, the epitome of love and virtue, endowed with unlimited powers of healing and exorcism, and overflowing with compassion for everyone, to jump at the chance to free this woman's daughter of the evil spirit, just like He had done literally countless times before for other people. You would be wrong. Matthew 15:23 records that Jesus would not even waste His breath to speak to her until He was prodded by His disciples to do so because she was bothering them. When Jesus finally did say something, it was far from what would be expected, as we see in Matthew 15:24:

[Jesus] answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." NIV

According to this line, Jesus was sent only for the Jews, according to the will of God the Father (the implied sender of Jesus). No Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15, Luke 24:45-47). No inclusion of Gentiles. Maybe. Let us take a moment to birth this pregnant statement.

This could be a relic of a time when the Jesus story was exclusively for the Jews. With the above-noted Great Commission (the commission to preach Jesus to all of the world) being at the end of the Gospels, they could easily be a late addition to the story at a time when it seemed that the Gentiles had become interested in Jesus. In fact, the oldest manuscripts of Mark do not include this Great Commission. (Those versions end at Mark 16:8, with an empty tomb but no eyewitnesses to a risen Jesus.) Of course, there is also the curious fact that Saul/Paul was specifically designated as the Apostle to the Gentiles in Acts 9:15, which would not have been necessary if the surviving eleven Apostles had been given a commission to go out to all of the nations. Finally, and in connection to the point above, we should also consider that the "all of the nations" in the Great Commission may not have actually meant all the nations of the world. In the Old Testament, such as in Zechariah 11:10, "all of the nations" was also used (although rarely) to mean exclusively the Jews, as each of the Twelve Tribes of Jews had a "nation" of their own^* within the greater nation of Israel. So it is possible that the Great Commission, even if it was included in early Gospel drafts, may not have been all that great in scope.

On the other hand, Jesus could just be saying that God the Father's specific orders were for Jesus to spread the message to the Jews, and for believers to subsequently spread the message to the rest of the world. Then Jesus' statement would seem to be an indication that He placed following the commands of God the Father first and foremost, so He could not heal the woman's daughter because it was outside His God-given scope, and yet He healed the daughter anyway just a handful of verses later. Plus, if Jesus was only sent to the Jews, what on earth was He doing outside of the nation of Israel? It makes no sense for Jesus to travel to Tyre or Sidon. It is like going to Norway to help the people of Sweden.

The story really does not get better as it continues. The woman begs for help again (Matthew 15:25). From here on out, Matthew 15:26-28 and Mark 7:27-30 have essentially the same content, but there is one peculiar difference.

Matthew 15:26 is similar to Mark 7:27, but Mark adds a qualifying statement (highlighted in bold below) in Jesus' reply to the woman:

"First let the children eat all they want," [Jesus] told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." NIV

If you were reading Mark's version alone, you may not really know what Jesus means by "the children." That is probably why Matthew touched up the story when he copied it for his Gospel, adding the part discussed above regarding the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus is saying that the Jews should get first dibs on healing miracles and exorcisms, and possibly on interaction with Jesus. Of course, again, this leads to the question of why was Jesus in the region of Tyre and Sidon if such preference was to be given to the Jews?

Jesus' statement suggests that there is a limited quantity of God's blessing.

Also, you should note that to use the reference of dogs here, referring to this woman and her people in general, was a pretty big insult. This is not exactly the kind of language you would expect from Mr. Compassion.

Do not think that the statement implies that it was a Jews-first, then Gentiles sentiment either. The metaphor is children verses dogs. They were not equal in Jesus' eyes, and not even worthy of sitting at the table. The concept through the metaphor is that maybe, just maybe, some compassion may spill over for the Gentiles, but it is far from guaranteed.

Finally you should note that this is the same Jesus who had earlier instructed His own Disciples to freely give of their powers of healing and exorcism when sending them out on their first mission (Matthew 10:8). This is no free giving. This is a test of endurance against intentional discouragement, rendering Jesus a hypocrite in the classic sense.

The woman, unfazed or perhaps desperate beyond any other hope, pleads one more time, continuing in Jesus' metaphor to suggest that she would gladly take any crumbs which dropped from the table. This persistence finally won over Jesus' compassionate side, and so He exorcised her daughter remotely (Matthew 15:27-28, Mark 7:28-30). Allegedly the daughter is healed, even though there are no witnesses in Jesus' party to verify that fact, given that the daughter was not present at the time.

Perhaps it is for these very serious issues that Luke, the Editor, opted not to include this episode in his Gospel.

* - That each of the tribes had their own nation is not 100% accurate. The Tribe of Levi, a.k.a. the Levites, did not have their own nation, but were rather scattered through each of the other Jewish nations serving as priests. Nevertheless, there were still considered to be twelve nations, as the Tribe of Joseph was considered to be split into the Tribe of Manasseh and the Tribe of Ephriam. See this map for reference.

Curiously, you will see that the map actually includes Tyre and Sidon as part of the territory of the Tribe of Asher as defined in Joshua 19:24-31. Yet as 2 Samuel 5:11 later indicates, Tyre had a Gentile king. Neither Tyre nor Sidon were ever captured and populated by Jews or fully incorporated into their kingdom, but Tyre was often portrayed as having a friendly, almost vassal-like relationship for some time with the Jews (2 Samuel 5:11, 1 Kings 5:1, 1 Kings 9:11-12). Yet at some point in time, the relationship with Tyre turned sour, causing God to condemn it (Isaiah 23, Ezekiel 26).

Are You Still So Dull?

'
Background
Matthew and Mark had Jesus feed the five thousand, followed by a walk on the waters of the Sea of Galilee before the anecdote in this next study. Luke also had Jesus feed the five thousand, but skipped the aquatic jaunt. Luke does not include the content of this study until much later in his Gospel timeline, after Jesus was accused of being Satanic, spoke about the sign of Jonah, and spoke about the eye being the lamp of the body. Previously we discussed how John showed Salvation is by invitation only, but John skips this next topic entirely.

Are You Still So Dull?

When examining Scriptures, there should be a balance in concentration on the message and the details. In many ways, the message is the most important part; what you need to remember to guide your life and see the overall purpose. Yet details are also important, even critically important, to establish the credibility and authority of the message. Details are the foundation which can support or refute any alleged message from God. Let us examine how details can erode the foundation of a message.

Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7:1-23 both similarly record an anecdote when some Pharisees from Jerusalem visiting the region north of the Sea of Galilee found that Jesus' disciples were eating without first washing their hands, transgressing the tradition of Jewish elders. The Pharisees asked Jesus why His disciples were transgressing the custom (Matthew 15:1-2, Mark 7:1-5).

Jesus counterattacks, asking the Pharisees why they break the commands of God in favor of their traditions. In example, Jesus says that God commanded for non-parent-honoring children to be put to death, but the Pharisees instead teach that it is acceptable for the children to choose to devote their gifts to God as opposed to their parents (Matthew 15:3-6, Mark 7:9-13).

This may just be the most confused passage in the Synoptic Gospels. Take a moment to think about what Jesus said here. Jesus is complaining that they are not obeying God's Law to put certain children to death. That should be strange enough to anyone who thinks that God is abounding in love and mercy. But did you also notice the what the Pharisees were allowing instead?

It is not that the Pharisees were completely ignoring this law. It is not that they were giving a free pass for children to curse their parents. It was that the Pharisees were allowing children to choose to devote gifts to God as opposed to their own parents. The Pharisees were allowing the children to put God, their heavenly Father, first and foremost. And Jesus had a problem with this teaching, despite His own teaching that serving God was more important than serving family.

Jesus also mentions how Isaiah had prophesied about the Pharisees; how they honored God with their lips but not their hearts, and taught teachings of man over those of God (Matthew 15:7-9, Mark 7:6-8). Yet if you look at the context of Isaiah 29 surrounding the quoted verse of Isaiah 29:13, it appears that the quoted verse is not prophesy at all, but rather a condemnation of the status of Jerusalem (referred to as "Ariel" in this text) in the time of Isaiah, and the actual prophesy is about how God will have all of the other nations attack Jerusalem to humble the Israelites, only to have God eliminate the forces of the other nations in an instant in order to shock the Israelites into worshiping God in purity.

So, now that Jesus has blasted the Pharisees for not completely obeying God's Law, you may expect Jesus to next give them a further lesson about that God had said about washing or cleanliness. If so, you would be wrong. Instead, Jesus teaches something completely different to God's Law, stating that nothing a man eats makes him unclean, and instead it is what a man says which can make him unclean (Matthew 15:10-11, Mark 7:14-15). The teaching itself is good, but it contradicts God's Law in Leviticus 11 regarding acceptable animals to eat, and completely ignores the other ways which God said that a person could be come unclean, such as if they simply touched anything unclean (Leviticus 5:2-3) (which may have been the source for the ritual washing), if they get a skin disease (Leviticus 13:3), if a man has a nocturnal emission (Leviticus 15:16), if anyone has sex involving a discharge of semen (Leviticus 15:18), or a woman has her period (Leviticus 15:19), among other causes.

There is a school of thought that Jesus contradicting these cleanliness laws is acceptable, because these laws belong to a subset of God's Law known as ceremonial laws. Some scholars posit that the ceremonial laws were fulfilled and thus nullified through Jesus, among other things. Being clean or unclean affected whether or not you could participate in festivals and worshiping God in the Temple, and so often Christian scholars take the position that these cleanliness laws were a metaphor, of sorts, to show how God could not tolerate to be around sin, and thus why Jesus' sacrifice was necessary. However, as is clearly seen in the examples above, some forms of uncleanliness came simply from natural biological functions; functions which nobody has control over. So the analogy of uncleanliness representing a state of sinfulness falls apart, if you are willing to consider the details.

Moving on, Matthew 15:12-14 contains a semi-unique thought, where Jesus' disciples tell Jesus that the Pharisees were offended. Jesus replies that they are blind guides who should be left alone to guide the blind. (Luke 6:39 also mentions the blind leading the blind, but not in connection with the Pharisees.) This is a rather interesting teaching, as Jesus is effectively saying "go ahead and let other religious teachers misguide other people." That is great news for religious tolerance, but it does not portray an attitude that God loves everyone and wants them to be saved.

Matthew 15:15-20 and Mark 7:17-23 both conclude the episode with Jesus' disciples asking Him to explain this "parable," which is not much of a parable. Jesus, being the great teacher that He was, asked them "Are you still so dull?" Are you really that stupid? Are you truly that slow-minded? You know, it is the kind of question you would expect from a merciful, humble, meek, and omniscient teacher. Not.

Anyway, Jesus goes on to explain that food does not affect or portray the morals of a person, but what people say can reveal all sorts of evils within their hearts. Again, this is a good teaching, so good you have to wonder why an omniscient God would not have included it from the beginning instead of messing around with apparently artificial cleanliness.

Here is the kicker: Jesus' disciples had already been breaking this hand-washing tradition, presumably for some time, but Jesus did not bother explaining to His own disciples why they were breaking this tradition until now. At least, that is what you should believe according to the text. In reality, however, this is a give away that the whole episode is a fictitious construct crafted to support a particular teaching; the teaching that it does not matter what is within your belly, but rather it is what is within your heart that matters to God.

As we have seen, there are many issues within this anecdote which make it questionable, at best, if not a flat out fictitious fable. Perhaps that is why Luke, the Editor, re-imagines the story differently. In Luke 11:37-41, Luke has Jesus invited for dinner to the house of a Pharisee, where that Pharisee questioned Jesus Himself why He did not wash His hands before eating. Jesus replies, blasting the Pharisees in general for being concerned with the appearance of outside cleanliness despite themselves being wicked and greedy on the inside. Jesus then tells him to give what is in the dish to the poor, and then everything will be clean for him. Thereby, Luke effectively circumnavigates the issues present in Matthew and Mark version. Now if only there was a demonstration that the Divine knew that personal hygiene, such as washing your hands before eating, was also a good thing, perhaps we could give God a little more credit.

By Invitation Only

'
Background
After walking on water to meet up with His disciples on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus arrives in Capernaum. Shortly thereafter, some Jews (who had eaten at the feeding of the five thousand) caught up with Jesus there; sparking a conversation where Jesus gets a little tangled up in His own metaphorical language. This study continues on with that same conversation, but with a special focus on exclusivity.

By Invitation Only

Often times, Christians will point to the freewill as an excuse for the way things are; such as why there is evil in the world (a consequence of humans choosing to works acts of evil on their own free will) or why God is justified in the eternal damnation of certain humans (because they have chosen to reject God's Salvation by their own free will). It is such a convenient argument that Christians completely ignore the Scripture which states the contrary. For there is one will which will always trump human will, and that is God's will.

Previously, we saw Jesus having a conversation with some Jews, where He explained that He was the "bread of life" sent by God to give eternal life, and people would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to live (John 6:25-59). During that conversation, another theme emerged: exclusivity.

John 6:37-38 states that Jesus will accept anyone who is sent by God, the Father, which naturally implies that there are those not send by the Father, and therefore not destined for Salvation. The truth of exclusivity is more clearly claimed in John 6:44-45 where Jesus says:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from Him comes to Me." NIV

So you must be drawn by God to the "bread of life," Jesus, to be Saved. There is a little ambiguity which seems to imply that God may speak to some people who do not listen to Him, but that apparent loophole will be closed soon enough. After all, who can resist the will of God?

With God selecting and drawing specific people to Jesus, it appears that any follower of Jesus is Saved, but that is not the case. After Jesus tells the Jews about how they must consume Him for Salvation, some of His own disciples are offended by His teaching (John 6:60). Jesus replies to the disciples in such a way that "many of His disciples turned back and no longer followed Him" (John 6:66).

(Note: Be careful when reading the Gospels, because "disciples" only means "students," not necessarily the Twelve Disciples/Apostles which are often thought of when the term "disciples" is used.)

What did Jesus say which turned many disciples away? Jesus reply in John 6:61-65 is, in a word, confrontational. In John 6:61-62, He starts by mocking their whining and attacking their lack of faith in His authority. Jesus begins His next thought with the "Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing," and states that the words which He had spoken were Spirit and life (John 6:63). Jesus knows, however, that some of them do not believe Him (John 6:64), which is why we find these parting words in John 6:65:

[Jesus] went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has enabled him." NIV

Take just a moment to reflect on what this teaching means. You can choose to follow Jesus, out of your own free will. Yet you will not be able to believe in Jesus in a manner which leads to Salvation unless God also chooses to let you believe. The flesh, your choice, counts for nothing.

This teaching is a natural consequence of the teaching that God, the Father, is the one who chooses people for Salvation, because if God is the one leading people to Jesus, how could anyone subsequently leave Christianity, making God's actions result in failure? The solution to that conundrum is to establish the theological concept that some people will choose to become Christian, but are not really Saved, because God did not choose them. This is predetermined fate, not an outcome of freewill. God chooses who will be saved and who will perish, not us. This same sentiment is echoed in Romans 9:16-21:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist His will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? NIV

Funny how you do not hear much about this teaching in modern pulpits. It is psychologically much easier to blame a person for rejecting God, than to blame God for rejecting that person.

Why Jesus Spoke in Parables

'
Background
Just prior to the topic of this study, according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus disowned His own mother. However, according to Luke, Jesus disowned His mother after the events in this study. For Luke, the topic of this study was preceded by a sinful woman anointing Jesus (Luke 7:36-50), and Jesus wandering from village to village with His Twelve Apostles (Luke 8:1-3).

Why Jesus Spoke in Parables

“When its twigs are dry, they are broken off and women come and make fires with them. For this is a people without understanding; so their Maker has no compassion on them, and their Creator shows them no favor.” Isaiah 27:11 NIV

“Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.” Daniel 12:10 NIV

There are many divisions in the body of Christianity, but one of the more fundamental divisions is whether or not a Christian believes that the opportunity for Salvation is inclusive or exclusive. The inclusive perspective holds that God makes sure that, by some means, everybody is at least presented the option of Salvation, and their Salvation is usually based on their free will acceptance of it. The exclusive perspective is that Salvation is really only available to a subset of people, the Elect, and God will make sure that only and all of the Elect will attain Salvation. The inclusive perspective is the most fair, but the exclusive perspective is the most accurate to Scripture, as we can see through Jesus' telling of parables.

Matthew 13:1-9, Mark 4:1-9, and Luke 8:4-8 all recount Jesus telling a parable to a crowd regarding a man who sows seeds indiscriminately, ultimately resulting in only the seeds which had fallen on good soil producing fruit.

In each account, Jesus ends the parable with the essentially same line; "He who has ears, let him hear." From the context, it does not appear that Jesus added this remark in its literal sense; this was not a message for everyone who physically had ears. Instead, it appears that Jesus meant that only certain people would be able to understand this parable, and that they should take heed of it. It appears that Jesus was only really talking to select people, and that appearance would be immediately confirmed by the Scripture.

The three accounts vary slightly about what happens next, but they are all a variant on Jesus answering the question posed by Jesus' disciples in Matthew 13:10:

The disciples came to [Jesus] and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" NIV

Jesus' reply in each of these three Gospels is a demonstration of each author's perspective. Mark, which many scholars believe is the earliest of the four Gospels, is raw and terse. Matthew clearly tries to aggregate additional information to the recorded data. Luke appears to edit out an unsavory verse. Let us take a look at each reply, starting with Mark 4:11-12:

[Jesus] told them, "The secret of the Kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" NIV

According to Jesus' own words, His parables were not brilliant metaphors which helped the masses understand the Kingdom of God. No. They were deliberate enigmas meant to keep unwanted people out of the Kingdom of God by keeping them from repentance by keeping them from understanding. Only Jesus' disciples were given the secret, true meaning of the parables, which is subsequently illustrated for this parable in Matthew 13:18-23, Mark 4:13-20, and Luke 8:11-15.

That last bit about “otherwise they might turn and be forgiven” seems especially harsh, making it appear that God did not want to forgive everyone. Plus, it sets up an interesting paradox where it appears that God would be bound to keep His promise, but keeping His promise is against His will. The concept of God doing anything against His own will is troublesome. These issues are probable reasons why Luke, being a bit of an editor, left off that line in Jesus' reply in Luke 8:9-10, which is otherwise essentially the same reply as Mark 4:11-12 above.

Matthew, on the other hand, continues in his trend of aggregating pieces into the story, expanding Jesus' reply by quite a bit before going into explaining the actual parable. In Matthew 13:10-17 we find the same theme main theme, that the parables are meant to occlude knowledge from non-disciples. We also find that those who have understanding will be given more while those who do not have understanding will be even more befuddled, we see a greatly expanded prophesy quote, and we have a reminder that Jesus' disciples are fortunate to have this knowledge that prophets and righteous men had longed to know.

So why did Jesus speak in parables? Biblically speaking, it was to condemn people in their lack of understanding. It was a type of mockery. It was as if Jesus felt obligated to tell everyone about His Kingdom, but He also felt like He had fulfilled that obligation if He were to do so in a foreign language, fully aware that most of His audience would never understand His words.

Regarding the Prophesy
This is yet another case of mangled prophesy in the New Testament. Jesus' reply appears to be centered around Isaiah 6:9-10. However, it does not quite fit.

Isaiah 6:9 says "...Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving," in hearing→seeing order, as opposed to how Mark and Luke reference a seeing→hearing order.

Isaiah 6:10 does have a seeing→hearing order which we find in the latter half of the verse with "...Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed," but you notice that it is not in the same sense of how Mark and Luke quote it (which is a closer match with Isaiah 6:9). As you can see above, Mark also quotes an interpretation of the last phrase of Isaiah 6:10, but has skipped the “understand with their hearts” phrase completely.

Alternatively, some scholars suggest the seeing→hearing order comes from either Jeremiah 5:21 or Ezekiel 12:2, but how Mark would then mash together these verses with only the very last phrase of Isaiah 6:10 is a real puzzle.

Matthew 13:14-15 more-fully quotes Isaiah 6:9-10. However, the supposedly Jewish Matthew quotes this passage from the Septuagint, a Greek interpretation of the Old Testament, as opposed to the original Hebrew source, as you can see here. By doing so, Matthew propagated an error in that particular translation which substantially changed the intent of the original words.

What was the original intent? Well, I encourage you to look at Isaiah 6 for yourself. It is a mere thirteen verses, so it will not take you long. In there, you will not find a prophesy regarding Jesus or any other Messiah. Instead you find a God who is exasperated by the continual cycle of backslide-repent-backslide of His people. Therefore, God wants to afflict them with a harsh punishment “until the Lord has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken.” This is a pre-exile prophesy.

The exile was meant to be a shocking blow to get the Jewish nation back on track, eventually, because they had been ignoring God's more-mild disciplinary actions, like drought and disease. Presumably, God did not want them to repent for the moment only to backslide again a few years later, as had been the case many times before. That is why God gave the command to Isaiah to curse the people so that they would not understand or perceive until their nation had been decimated and displaced.

Jesus' Family

'
Background
In our progression through the Gospels, we saw how Jesus was accused of working for Satan when He cast out demons, how the one unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and how the story of Jonah was twisted into a metaphor for a sign which would be given to this generation. Mathew 12:43-45 then talks of how this generation will be like an exorcised man who subsequently gets re-possessed by that same demon and seven more wicked ones. Luke 11:24-25 also references the re-possessed man, but without the condemnation of this generation, and before Jesus had told the Pharisees about the sign of Jonah. Also interesting are the two verses which follow that, Luke 11:26-27, because they probably make Catholics shudder in denial as Jesus turns the focus away from His mother, but that pales in comparison with what Matthew and Mark cover next, and what Luke covered long before that...

Jesus' Family

In the popular version of the Ten Commandments, the fifth commandment in Exodus 20:12 states:

"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." NIV

This “honor” appears to be in the sense of respecting and obeying your dad and mom, as opposed to the sense of bestowing them with accolades. As you can see, there are no qualifiers. It does not say “if your parents are good, then honor them.” Nor does it say “honor your parents until you have your own family.” This is a lifelong duty you owe your parents. Considering that it appears as though the Law was only fully in effect when children reached the full age of culpability, 20 years old, this commandment was intended even more for adults than for children. With Jesus being God, and carrying out God's will so perfectly, we might expect Jesus to have set a shining enacting example of this fifth commandment. If so, our expectations will be seriously unfulfilled.

Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35, and Luke 8:19-21 all record an event where Jesus' mother and brothers arrived to confront Jesus, but they could not get to Him because of the crowd. So they sent someone to let Jesus know that His mother and brothers were outside and wanted to talk to Him. Jesus' reply is recorded essentially the same in Mark 3:33-35, Luke 8:21, and Matthew 12:48-50:

[Jesus] replied to him, "Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?" Pointing to His disciples, He said, "Here are My mother and My brothers. For whoever does the will of My Father in Heaven is My brother and sister and mother." NIV

To the believer, this is just a proclamation that fellow followers of Christ are to be like family to one another, and that may be true, but that is not the complete picture.

Jesus says that whoever does the will of God is His family, and so at the same time it appears as though He is disowning His own biological family, presumably because they are not obeying God's will. Thus it appears as though Jesus is dishonoring his biological mother's request to speak with Him, and thus breaking God's commandment to honor your parents.

That is a bold claim, I know. Right now I am sure any believers reading this reject the notion completely. However, the truth is revealed when you look at the motivation of Jesus' family's visitation. This motivation is only captured in the earliest-written Gospel, in the usually ignored verses of Mark 3:20-21:

Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that He and His disciples were not even able to eat. When His family heard about this, they went to take charge of Him, for they said, "He is out of His mind." NIV

If you do believe your Son is the Messiah, on a mission from God, you probably are not going to think that He is crazy, and you certainly would not try to “take charge of Him.” Clearly, despite angels from God proclaiming to both Joseph and Mary that their Son would be the Messiah (according Matthew and Luke only), Jesus' real family had issues accepting Him as the Messiah. So from that perspective, it makes sense that Jesus was dishonoring and disowning His family for not heeding God's words, even if it does not make sense for Him to break a commandment and somehow remain sinless.

Consider how well this meshes with Jesus' earlier statement about how He had come to set family members against each other. Consider also how well this aligns with later statements where Jesus encourages leaving parents and children to follow Him (Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29-31, Luke 18:29-30).

But that is not the whole story, because there are examples, primarily in the Gospel of John, where Jesus does seem to promote honoring your biological mother. Jesus (begrudgingly) made miraculous wine at His mother's request, hung out with His family (John 2:12), and entrusted the care of His mother to John before His crucifixion (John 19:25-27).

It just does not add up. It is as if Jesus has multiple personalities, or as if there is some fabrication involved in these stories.


The Order of Events
As covered in a previous post, one of the easiest ways to prove the fallibility of the Gospels is just to look at the order of events. The Gospel writers, despite the supposed ability to consult with hundreds of eyewitnesses to get the story correct, could not agree on when things happened. Of the three synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, usually scholars will claim that Luke spent the most concerted effort to write everything down in the right order, while Matthew and Mark only concentrated on remembering the most important details and cared less about chronology. The problem is that you cannot give Luke the crown for an accurate timeline without completely ignoring some of the text in the other Gospels.

For example, this episode begins with Matthew 12:46 stating:

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, His mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to Him. NIV

“While Jesus was still talking to the crowd” is a phase of sequential conjunction. It unequivocally ties this event into Jesus' last message according to Matthew, which was in Mathew 12:43-45 when Jesus spoke of how this generation will be like an exorcised man who subsequently gets re-possessed by that same demon and seven more wicked ones. Preceding that, according to Matthew, Jesus spoke about the sign of Jonah, which was preceded by Jesus being accused of using Satan's powers.

Luke give us an entirely different, incompatible timeline across multiple chapters. Even the setup is different. According to Luke, Jesus gave the parable of the Sower. (Luke 8:4-15, which Matthew places right after this on the same day in Matthew 13:1-23) Then Jesus gave the parable of the lamp on a stand. (Luke 8:16-18, covered by Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:14-16) Then Luke 8:19-21 parallels the account from Matthew regarding who Jesus' mother and brothers are.

From there, Luke covers lots of ground, including these highlights:

• Jesus calms the storm. (Luke 8:22-25, covered by Matthew 8:23-27)
• Jesus sends out the Twelve Apostles (Luke 9:1-10, covered by Matthew 10)
• Jesus feeds the 5000 (Luke 9:10-17, covered by Matthew 14:13-21)
• Jesus is Transfigured (Luke 9:28-36, covered by Matthew 17:1-9)
• Jesus sends out seventy-two other disciples on a mission (Luke 10:1-12, not mentioned at all by Matthew)
• Jesus teaches the "Lord's Prayer." (Luke 11:1-4, covered by Matthew 6:5-13)

Then, finally, Luke gets to where Jesus is accused of using Satanic powers to cast out demons (Luke 11:14-20). That is followed by the Pharisees asking Jesus for a sign, to which He replies that they will get the sign of Jonah (Luke 11:29-32). According to Luke, this was followed by the parable of the lamp of the body (Luke 11:33-36) and Jesus playing the ultimate rude house guest by condemning the Pharisee who had invited Him to dinner because of his good sanitation practices (Luke 11:37-53).

So the next time someone comes to you and claims that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, ask them to produce a timeline of Jesus' life which is in perfect harmony with the four Gospels before you will believe them. Then, do not be surprised if you never hear from them again. ;-)