Cross Talk

'
Background
After being tried by the Priests and investigated by Pilate, Pilate relented to the crowd's demand to have Jesus crucified. So Pilate chose to flog Jesus, and then soldiers led Him away to face His fate. Those soldiers may have mocked Jesus with purple robe and false praise of kingship (Matthew, Mark), unless that happened before Jesus was sentenced, under Herod's watch (Luke). Then, Jesus carried His own cross to the mount where He was crucified (John), unless a man named Simon carried it for Him (Matthew, Mark, Luke).

Cross Talk

One of the aspects I enjoy about the Bible is that, like many other literary works, it captures human nature fairly well. The Bible provides an unusual slice of that nature because the Gospels, in particular, were written with an intent of building credibility behind the claim of Jesus being the Messiah, among other intents. Let us take a look at this facet of nature as we examine Jesus' time on the cross up to, but not including, His death.

Matthew 27:36-49, Mark 15:25-36, Luke 23:35-45, and John 19:19-29 all cover Jesus' hang time on the cross. Let us begin with Mark, shall we?

Mark 15:25 tells us that it was 9 A.M. (the third hour) when Jesus was put on the cross. The timer begins. There were two daily sacrifices that the Priests carried out on a regular basis. The first just happened to be at around 9 A.M. Coincidence, or deliberate writing? You know the answer. ;-)

In Mark 15:26 we read:

The written notice of the charge against Him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS. NIV

You may remember from the previous posts, the Priests charged Jesus with blaspheme, but instead they presented Jesus to Pilate as an insurrectionist claiming to be king.

In Mark 15:27, you find Jesus was crucified between two thieves. This seemingly benign verse is used to tie in the prophesy of Isaiah 53, in particular the verse of Isaiah 53:12 where a suffering servant of God was "numbered with the transgressors".

Any association with prophesy would bolster credibility, and that of Isaiah 53 is one of two Old Testament prophesies which, as a whole, actually come close to matching parts of the Jesus story. The language in Isaiah 53 is a bit vague, and requires context to properly discern. Please see this very detailed post discussing Isaiah 53 if you are interested in the refuting of that prophesy.

With Jesus on such a shameful display, it is a fitting portrayal of human nature that we find Him being mocked. The mocking in Mark 15:29-30 is particularly interesting, because people walking by mocked that Jesus said He would "destroy the Temple and build it in three days". However, despite the apparent commonality of the knowledge of this claim presented here, back when Jesus was being questioned before the Priests they could not get witnesses to agree that Jesus had actually made such a claim (Mark 14:58-59)! So to find people walking by using that statement as a point of mockery is strange, to say the least.

Of course, the Chief Priests and Teachers of the Law also mocked Jesus, demanding that He miraculously come down from the cross to prove his Messianic status, and both of the thieves crucified with Him mocked Him as well (Mark 15:31-32). It is a great display of an unsavory side of human nature. Everyone around Jesus was united in mob mentality to pick on Him, given His lofty claims versus His then-present lowly situation.

Next, from noon to 3 P.M. (the ninth hour), it got dark outside. Three hours of darkness in "the whole land", and yet there is no recorded history of this event happening outside the Bible. This was probably just thrown in for dramatic effect. :-) The end was about to come...

3 P.M. was also the time of the second ritual, daily sacrifice for the Priests. Another likely contrived coincidence.

Speaking of contrived coincidences, in Mark 15:34 we read:

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" NIV

The Christian story behind this cry, as Gill puts it, was that Jesus was "now without a sense of the gracious presence of God" and was facing the divine wrath for the sins of mankind. It is a quaint story, but it does not hold up to scrutiny.

Given that Jesus was God, or at least some integral part of God, how could Jesus not feel the presence of God? That would be like not being aware of your own presence, which is fairly difficult to do when you are conscious. ;-)

Yet an even greater paradox than that bizarre scenario of God not feeling His own pretense is the question of "why". Not my "why", but rather Jesus' "why". For Jesus to ask why this was happening would indicate that He did not know His purpose and God's plan, and yet He did know. Why would Jesus ask such a question when He knew the answer?

I will tell you why. Because the author of this Gospel wanted you to know what "prophesy" he was using as a script for the crucifixion, so that it would appear that the prophesy was fulfilled and thus enhance his credibility. It is a quote of Psalm 22:1. Psalm 22 was allegedly written by King David, metaphorically describing the events before he was king, when King Saul had his men hunting down David. Saul had essentially labeled David as public enemy #1.

While quite a bit of Psalm 22 appears to be a good match for the Jesus story, refer to this post to see that focusing on the details reveals that Psalm 22 has quite a bit that is not about Jesus at all, and even runs contrary to Jesus' story.

Anyway, people around Jesus thought that He was calling for Elijah when He made that yelp (Mark15:35). If people standing near the cross could not understand Jesus, then it is a bit of a mystery how anyone did understand Him enough to record Jesus' cry of forsakenness.

Someone offered Jesus wine vinegar to drink, which is a tie in to Psalm 69:21 (we discussed Psalm 69 in the previous post), and others mocked Jesus some more by saying that Elijah should save Him (Mark 15:36).

OK, on to Matthew. Again, as is typical with Matthew, he essentially copied Mark with only slight wording changes, with two exceptions where he, also as typical, added material.

The first significant change is that, while the time of the beginning of the crucifixion is not mentioned, instead we have a reference to soldiers keeping watch on Jesus (Matthew 27:36). This is unique to Matthew, and the vigilance displayed here portends the soldiers which would be used to guard Jesus tomb in Matthew 27:62-66. Matthew was trying to persuade his readers that there was no possible substitution or saving of Jesus, or taking of His body afterward.

The second addition comes in the form of a particular insult hurled at Jesus by the Chief Priests and Teachers of the Law in Matthew 27:43, which is mostly unremarkable other than that they are quoted as saying "He (Jesus) trusts in God" as if they did not, providing a little more slander against the Jewish religious elite.

Now, to Luke. Luke edited and rearranged the story quite a bit.

Luke 23:35 begins our study with people mocking Jesus on the cross. Noticeably absent is the mocking found in Matthew 27:39-40 and Mark 15:29-30 regarding Jesus destroying the Temple and rebuilding it in three days. That is no surprise, but is rather a mark of consistency for Luke, who had earlier edited out that charge against Jesus.

While Luke gets some points for consistency, we may need to subtract some for strangeness when we find in Luke 23:36-37:

The soldiers also came up and mocked Him. They offered Him wine vinegar and said, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself." NIV

The soldiers, who are implicitly Roman, somehow manage to associate being King of the Jews with having miraculous powers. Of course, it is also reasonable to guess that they had heard of the Messianic prophesies, or possibly that some Jews had been conscripted as soldiers, so we can give Luke a pass on this oddity.

In Luke 23:38 is the sign on the cross, which is essentially the same as Mark.

Next we come to the thieves on the cross. Different than Matthew and Mark, Luke 23:39-43 says that only one of the thieves mocked Jesus, while the other one claimed that Jesus was being punished without having done anything wrong. (Thanks, Luke, for that convenient, convincing reminder of Jesus' innocence.) That thief asked Jesus to remember him, and in Luke 23:43, we find this remarkable reply:

Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." NIV

This is a rather problematic verse on many levels, but the main issue is the "today" part for a few reasons.

The first reason is the technical detail that death by crucifixion would often take days, so it would be unlikely for that thief to have died that day in order to be in paradise with Jesus.

The second reason is the Scriptural contradiction versus John 20:17, where, after His resurrection, Jesus had said that He had not yet been to Heaven.

The third reason is the way in which it overturns so much dogma. But do not take my word for it. Here is what Christian Dr. Charles R. Erdman inserted into John Gill's biblical commentary:

In the salvation of one of the thieves, theology finds one of its finest demonstrations. Sacrementalism was refuted, for the thief was saved without recourse to baptism, the Lord's Supper, church, ceremony, or good works. The dogma of purgatory was refuted, for this vile sinner was instantly transformed into a saint and made fit for paradise apart from his personal expiation of a single sin. The teaching of universalism was refuted, for only one was saved of all who might have been saved. Jesus did not say, "Today shall ye be with me in paradise," but "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." The notion of soul-sleep was refuted, for the clear implication of the entire incident is that the redeemed thief would be in conscious fellowship with his Saviour in paradise even while his body disintegrated in some grave. Too, it is doubtful whether any other gospel incident presents the plan of salvation more clearly or simply.

Like Matthew and Mark, Luke also recorded three hours of darkness (Luke 23:44), but Luke 23:45 added this interesting detail to explain why it was dark:

for the sun stopped shining. NIV

The sun stopped shining. When a skeptic asks why were there not contemporaneous reports about Jesus outside of the Bible, a common counter is that the religious elite suppressed the reporting of Jesus. However, even if they could have done such a thing, and somehow the rumors and stories the great teaching and miracles stayed within the bounds of Jewish influence, we should still see reports about the sun not shining all over the region, which, obviously, defies the laws of physics as we know them.

That is it for Luke. He edited out the claim of Jesus calling out, asking God why He had forsaken Him. Perhaps Luke realized how ludicrous such a cry would have been for Jesus to make, even at the expense of dropping a "prophetic" reference.

Finally, we come to John. If you have been following along, you already know that John will be different. ;-) However, it is not too different, suggesting that the story of the crucifixion was an early part of the Christian tradition. Anyway...

John 19:19-22 also mentions the sign on the cross calling Jesus the "King of the Jews" (although each of the four Gospels disagree over the precise wording of the sign). John adds the details that it was written in three languages, and that the Chief Priests complained to Pilate regarding the sign.

Then John 19:23-24 discussed the casting of lots for Jesus' bloody underwear, as we discussed previously. It is a different order than the other Gospels mention this, but really that is a trivial change, given the simultaneous nature of the event.

John 19:25-27 then uniquely recorded the charming scene of Jesus giving His mother to "the disciple whom he loved" (who most Christians consider to be John), and recorded how Jesus' mom then stayed in the home of that disciple. Of course, this makes us question if Jesus' father dead at that time, or did Joseph kick Mary out of the house? There is no mention either way, so we are left with speculation.

Without either a perceived call for Elijah or soldiers mocking Him, Jesus prompted receiving a wine vinegar spong-drink by saying "I am thirsty" (John 19:28-29).

And that is it! There was absolutely no mention of mocking Jesus on the cross, including any speech at all by the thieves recorded in John. That in and of itself is not so remarkable, as mocking was likely a common occurrence of the victims of crucifixion and therefore may not have been worth noting.

However, John does not even mention the land getting dark or the sun ceasing to shine for three hours. That is precisely the kind of detail you would want to include it it had actually happened, as you could easily say to a potential convert "Hey, do you remember years ago when the sun stopped shining in the middle of the day for three hours? That was because they crucified our Savior, Jesus, at that time."

Having all of these differences across the four Gospels, and some interesting conundrums within the accounts themselves, we have a blurry picture of what occurred in what is arguably the most important moment in Jesus' life. At best, it speaks of faulty memory and the fidelity loss in communicating between an eyewitness and a third party. At worst, it is fiction; a common story point in the myth which was tweaked as each author saw fit. Given the track record of the Gospels thus far, the latter case appears to be more likely.

Judging the Blinded

'
Background
After Jesus' Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem, some Greeks sought out an audience with Him. Jesus replied to that request indirectly by predicting His death, telling people to hate their lives and follow Him, getting God to speak, giving reminder of the impending Judgement Day, and then hiding from everyone.

Judging the Blinded

If you are denied access to knowing the right thing to do, should you be punished for not doing the right thing? Have you got an answer in your mind? How would that change if I told you that the person in charge of distributing that knowledge, the one who denied you access to that information, was the same person judging you and assigning the punishments for not knowing what to do? What then? But what are our thoughts worth here, really? Why not check in to see what God thinks about the matter?

We start our study with John 12:37-38. This is immediately after Jesus had talked to crowd and then hid Himself away. In these verses John stated that despite the signs that Jesus performed in their presence, "they" (contextually meaning most of the Jews) did not believe in Jesus, and this fulfilled the prophetic verse from Isaiah 53:1. Isaiah 53 is the longest single Old Testament prophesy which has been applied to Jesus, and, unlike many other alleged prophesies, it actually appears to be somewhat accurate at first glance. However, in a recent post I explained the contextual reasons why that prophesy is unlikely to be meant for Jesus.

Next we come to two of the most revealing verses about the nature of God. In John 12:39-40 we see:

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
"He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them." NIV

First note that "they could not believe," as in they had no choice in the matter. Belief was not possible. That feeds into the quote from Isaiah which followed.

If you are unfamiliar with the source of this quote, you might think that that "He" is supposed to represent Satan. After all, who else would be blinding people from the truth and deadening their hearts to prevent them from repenting and being healed by God? Well, guess again.

John has misquoted Isaiah 6:10, which reads:

"Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." NIV

If you read the entire short prophesy of Isaiah 6, you will see that the context of this verse is that God was cursing the Israelites/Jews because He really wanted to punish them. It was God who was blinding their eyes and making their hearts hard. They had been in a cycle of backslide-repent-backslide, and so God wanted to send them a message that they would not forget so quickly; exile from the Promised Land. But He was afraid that if they repented, He would then be obligated to forgive them and subsequently would be prevented from getting His memorable message across.

By John using those verses here, he provided a crystal clear meaning: God prevented them from believing. However, as opposed to a seventy-year exile which happened the first time, this time there were more eternal consequences involved. God damned them to Hell; not even giving them the option to choose to believe in the Salvation offered through Jesus.

Those of you who are long-time readers of this blog may remember that I highlighted how Jesus had quoted this same verse from Isaiah as a response to the question of why He spoke in parables. The purpose of the parables was to exclude certain people from the Salvation option.

Ironically the next verse, John 12:41, states how Isaiah had said this because he had seen Jesus' glory. In my opinion, there is nothing glorious about judging against the blind for not being able to see, especially if you are the one who blinded them. In fact, it is morally reprehensible.

Moving on to (perhaps) less repugnant matters, John 12:42-43 is a good example of pious fiction in the Gospels:

Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in [Jesus]. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved praise from men more than praise from God. NIV

This is the kind of passage you read without giving it a second thought, because it seems reasonable. This is better than the Isaiah reference above, because clearly these people did have a choice in the matter of their Salvation. But when you think about these verses, you may realize that they have to be made up, because if these believers would not confess their faith, how is it then possible that John knew that they had believed?

In yet another seemingly odd splice(?), John 12:44 begins "Then Jesus cried out..." As you may remember from the previous study, the last thing that we have record of Jesus doing was leaving the crowd and hiding from them (John 12:36). So apparently Jesus yelled out the subsequent monologue after He had hidden Himself away from everyone. Jesus howling this speech to an absent crowd is not the only strange thing about it...

John 12:44-45 begins by discussing the vicarious nature of Jesus. If you believe in Jesus, you believe in God. Etc. Nothing too strange there, but let us move on to the next verse.

In John 12:46, Jesus claimed that His purpose was to be a light to the dark world. That in itself is not strange, until you consider another factor. In Matthew 5:15, Mark 4:21, Luke 8:16, Luke 11:33, Jesus Himself explained (metaphorically) that you should not hide that kind of light, but instead let it shine in a way that people can see by it. Yet, as noted above, Jesus said this after hiding Himself from the crowd (John 12:36)!

As Jesus continued on in John 12:47-48, we get the picture of Jesus playing a little bit of the "good cop/bad cop" routine. He said that He came to save the world, not to judge it, and explicitly claimed that He would not be the one to judge it. That is the "good cop" version of Jesus. Jesus had already played the "bad cop" in John 5:22-30 and John 9:39, where He explicitly claimed that He would indeed be the judge of all.

Jesus closed out His screaming schizophrenic soliloquy in John 12:49-50 by explaining that He had only said what God had told Him to say. If that is the case, either God morally disgusting and mentally disturbed, or God was playing one tremendous practical joke on Jesus. Or maybe, just maybe, this is all a myth.

The End Back Then, Part 4: Jesus' Return

'
Background
We are tracing through the verses where Jesus described the events leading up to the end of the world. First He warned His disciples of upcoming false Messiahs, wars, and disasters. Then He explained that they would become witnesses to the world. He then went on to describe the ultimate in distress which would occur in the Siege of Jerusalem; horror which would never be equaled again. All of that terror would culminate in the return of Jesus...

This is Part 4 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 4: Jesus' Return

It would be impossible to mistake the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, right? I mean, that would be a major event worldwide... no, universe-wide! One way to mistake it would be to misinterpret metaphors; to change what the text means in order to suit your own beliefs. While some may accuse me of doing just that, I think we should turn to the text and let it define itself. And if that does not match reality, that does not necessarily mean that the interpretation is wrong. There is another possible outcome, as we will see while we examine the signs of Jesus' Second Coming.

In Matthew 24:23-31, Mark 13:21-27, Luke 17:22-24, and Luke 21:25-28 we find verses all describing when Jesus will return. Matthew 24:23, which is nearly a word-for-word copy of Mark 13:21, begins with a reference to timing:

"At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it." NIV

"At that time"? When was that? This is conjoined to the preceding text, where it was describing the Siege of Jerusalem, so we should logically conclude that this means at a point in time in relatively close proximity to then.

Matthew 24:24-25 and Mark 13:22-23 go on to warn not to follow miracle-working false Christs who will try to trick the Elect, which is impossible, but they will try anyway. Of course, if tricking the Elect is impossible, then why bother warning them not to follow these miracle workers?

Wait just a minute. Miracle-working false Christs? Who, exactly, is giving them the power to work miracles?

The knee-jerk Christian reflex would be to say that it is Satan who is behind this, but that is just because most Christians either do not know or selectively ignore parts of the Bible. The deceivers likely come from God Himself.

What?!?! Oh yes. First, from where does all power ultimately come? God. But if that is not enough proof, I should remind you that tests of deception, up to and including miracle-working prophets, are part of God's playbook (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). So when you read in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 that "God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie," you know what we are talking about here.

Now you may have noticed that I have been silent on Luke's account. There is a reason for that. While Luke does warn of being led to false Christs, he wisely edited out the thought that they would be able to work miracles (Luke 17:23). That is not all the editing he did. Luke apparently was not a fan of the concept of the Elect, because he edited out that reference from his Gospel; both here and everywhere else!

Moving on, we hit one of those really odd patches of verses where Matthew and Luke both have content that Mark does not have. In Matthew 24:27-28, Jesus told His disciples that His return would be visible all over the world like a flash of lightning, and that vultures gather around corpses. I am not really sure what that last part about the vultures is supposed to mean, and I am not particularly satisfied by any of the explanations given in the classic commentaries. However, Luke takes a crack at it for us.

In Luke 17:24, Jesus also explained about His lightning-like visibility on His return. Then, a little later in Luke 17:37, we find a similar vulture-related comment. Luke 17:35-36 does provide some contextual meaning for these vultures, because in those verses Jesus explained that when He returned, certain people would be "taken." So when we get to Luke 17:37, a disciple asked "Where?," as in where will these people be taken? It is then that Jesus replied about vultures gathering around corpses, which still leaves the verse a bit open for interpretation despite Luke's added context, because, for example, we do not know if it is the good people or the bad people who are "taken". The idea of the gathering of the Elect (which we will see a little later) would suggest it is the good ones who are taken, but then, metaphorically, they are the vultures gathering around the corpse, which seems exceedingly odd.

Next we come to the shared sentiment of Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24-25:

"Immediately after the distress of those days
  'the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
  the stars will fall from the sky,
    and the Heavenly bodies will be shaken.'" NIV

Note the time frame again: immediately following those days, referring to the Siege of Jerusalem. Immediately is a relative term, for sure, and within the span of five or so years could be a reasonable interpretation, but two thousand years... not so much.

Besides the timing, what does the rest of that verse mean? Sun darkened? Moon not giving its light? (That, by the way, is another tell of bad Biblical science, given that the moon does not produce light of its own.) Stars falling? Heavens shaking? Sounds like some miraculous metaphysical manipulation! While this could be meant literally, like the Plague of Darkness on the Egyptians, this is most likely to be metaphorical, but what does the metaphor mean?

Classic Bible commenter John Gill suggests that the darkened sun refers to "...the Shekinah, or the divine presence in the temple...", i.e. God leaving the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and the darkened moon refers to "...the [Jewish] ceremonial law, the moon, the church is said to have under her feet, Revelation 12:1 so called because the observance of new moons was one part of it..." The problem is that Jesus already took care of this. God left the Temple when the curtain was torn (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45), and Jesus allegedly ended ceremonial law too. So that is a nice try, but let us let Scripture guide the interpretation instead.

In Isaiah 5:30, Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7, Joel 2:10, Joel 2:31, Joel 3:15, Amos 8:9, and Micah 3:6 you find similar references to these celestial signs. In fact, let us take a look at Ezekiel 32:7 for example:

"When I (God) snuff you (Egypt) out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light." NIV

Given that this language is applied to Egypt, we can know with some certainty that this is no allusion to God leaving the Temple or the end of Jewish ceremonial law. ;-) However, what you probably picked up on in this verse is God's judgement of condemnation.

Darkening the sun, the moon, and the stars is a metaphor which is connected with God's judgement, and it means that essentially that the subjects of this judgement are without hope. There is no sun to light their path by day. There is no moon to track the months to tell the seasons. There are no stars to guide them. In short: at that point, there is no way that they can escape their judgement.

You may have noticed the multiple references above in Joel. Take a quick read through Joel 2 and you will see that this metaphor here in the Gospels was most likely meant as a reference to the Judgement Day.

Continuing on, Matthew 24:30 and Luke 21:27-28 both share the sentiment of what Mark 13:26 concisely expressed:

"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory." NIV

Again we see that this is to occur at "that time." By Biblical prophesy standards, all of these time references are pretty darn precise, and all point to the time around the Siege of Jerusalem and the time soon thereafter.

Now, what does that phrase "see the Son of Man coming in clouds" mean? Well, our friend John Gill thinks that it is a metaphor; that "...he (Jesus) shall appear, not in person, but in the power of his wrath and vengeance, on the Jewish nation which will be a full sign and proof of his being come." Indeed, there are other verses where God's vengeance came with clouds, such as Isaiah 19:1, Isaiah 30:27, Lamentations 2:1, and the above-quoted Ezekiel 32:7.

So Gill's suggestion on this verse is reasonable and closer to the mark, but he is still way off target. God's vengeance would be displayed, but in the much larger context Judgement day. The verse itself was likely inspired by and intended to allude to Daniel 7:13-14:

"In my (Daniel's) vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." NIV

Does that sound like anyone we are supposed to know? ;-) Conveniently for us, this prophesy is explicitly explained in Daniel 7:23-27, with another reference to 3.5 years ("a time, times and half a time") like we saw in my earlier post on the Temple destruction which quoted a different prophesy from Daniel. Daniel's prophesy stated that at the end of this three and a half years there would be a swift act of judgement, and then God's eternal kingdom would be established!

Make no mistake. What Jesus allegedly prophesied here is the end of the world, and the timing was explicitly claimed to be shortly after the fall of the Temple. In fact, stepping up to the earlier verse with the celestial signs, there is the curious mention that the stars would fall from the heavens. There is only one Old Testament reference to stars actually falling: Isaiah 34:4. Isaiah 34 is a prophesy of judgement against all nations. This was an explicit reference to Jesus coming back, in person (Revelation 1:7), initiating the final Judgement Day.

Closing out this prophesy, that is why in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 you see that at that time Jesus would send forth angels to gather the Elect from the four winds (another bad Biblical science reference). The Elect would be saved from experiencing the intense tribulation of that dreadful day. This is but an echo of prior Old Testament prophesies, as we see in Ezekiel 34:12:

"As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I (God) look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness." NIV

Sermon on the Backs of the Pharisees

'
Background
In the courtyard of the Temple in Jerusalem, Jesus explained that He was not the son of David. That seemed a bit strange, given that the prophesies required the Messiah to be of David's lineage, that the Apostles claimed the contrary, and later He Himself claimed to be an offspring of David. Mark and Luke recorded how Jesus praised a poor widow who gave everything she had to the Temple. But before that praise, Mark and Luke show Jesus rebuking the Teachers of the Law a little bit. Matthew took that theme of condemnation, and ran with it...

Sermon on the Backs of the Pharisees

Matthew was great at aggregation. In writing his Gospel, he understood that it would be much more convenient or impressive to have the teachings of Jesus which had no significant background story to be grouped into one cohesive package, as opposed to being scattered throughout the various tales and anecdotes. Thus, the Sermon on the Mount was born. But besides those teachings, another common thread of snippets could be found in the stories of Jesus; that of condemnation of particular groups of the religious elite. So Matthew compiled another "sermon" of sorts.

Matthew 23 is an entire chapter primarily devoted to the condemnation of the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law (a.k.a. Scribes). Luke 11:37-54 is somewhat of a parallel, containing much of the same material, but not all of it and in a different order, and at a much earlier point in Jesus' timeline. Let us quickly step through this rant.

One of the most interesting parts is the very beginning, which is material unique to Matthew. Jesus was speaking to the crowds and His disciples (Matthew 23:1). In Matthew 23:2-3, He opened with:

"The Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." NIV

This is both interesting and frightening, because Jesus is effectively suggesting that you must submit to authority, regardless of whether or not that authority is good. This is a consistent message throughout the Bible, from David refusing to harm the anointed King Saul despite the evil he had done (1 Samuel 24:6-10) and killing the guy who killed King Saul (2 Samuel 1:1-16), to Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-21 stating that God has put the authorities in power, and so they must be obeyed.

In Matthew 23:4, Jesus then laments how They (Pharisees and Teachers of the Law) burden the people. Luke 11:45-46 parallels this, but is targeted to "experts in the Law."

In Matthew 23:5-7, we see that They love ostentatious displays, the various forms of respect they get due to Their position, and being called "Rabbi." Luke 11:43 says some of the same things, as do the later, more synchronized passages of Mark 12:38-40 and Luke 20:45-47, but Mark and Luke lack a reference to the honorable title of "Rabbi." This is interesting, because next we see...

In Matthew 23:8-10, oddly unique to Matthew, and contradictory to the Catholic church, Jesus instructed to call no man a "Rabbi," Master, or Father, because that role belongs to God. And only Jesus Himself should be called Teacher. (You probably started transgressing this command in elementary school.)

Tapping into that theme of humility (not claiming lofty titles), in Matthew 23:11-12 we see Jesus saying that you should be a humble servant if you want to be exalted. Essentially the same message is also found in Ezekiel 21:26, Matthew 18:3-5, Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 9:35, Mark 10:42-45, Luke 1:52, Luke 9:46-48, Luke 14:11, and Luke 22:24-27. Strangely, it is nowhere within the Gospel of John.

In Matthew 23:13, Jesus said that They do not enter the Kingdom of God, and They prevent others from doing so. In the parallel of Luke 11:52, Luke was a better editor. He had in mind the Elect, and so he slightly relaxed the language, in that the "experts in the Law" only hinder people entering the Kingdom, as opposed to preventing them from doing so.

Depending on what Bible version you have, you may or may not see Matthew 23:14, where Jesus condemned Them to severe punishment for being unmerciful to widows and making ostentatious prayers. Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47 have essentially the same content, but some manuscripts lack this line within Matthew.

In Matthew 23:15, Jesus said They work hard to find any religious convert, but then make him twice the "son of Hell" that They are. This is interesting on many levels. Judaism does not have an explicit call for the form of evangelism described here. There was no "Great Commission" for the Jews. However, that is not to say that God did not expect converts. God expected that, if the Jews actually obeyed His Law, other nations would be both impressed by the wisdom of God and somewhat jealous of the blessings the Jews were receiving from Him, and therefore would become interested in learning His ways (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Psalm 67:1-2, Isaiah 2:3, Micah 4:2).

Besides the evangelism aspect, the "son of Hell" is also an interesting point to ponder. In a previous study, we discussed how there are many who think that references to Hell (Gehenna in the Greek) are to a valley full of tombs and/or trash, and so the reference of that valley was similar to saying "your path leads to death" or "do not throw your life away." However, with the "son of Hell," the "son" carries with it a certain metaphorical weight in the sense of being like its "father," whatever that father is, like what we see in John 8:44. So is this equivalent to saying a "son of trash," a "son of death," or perhaps a "son of the Devil"? Unfortunately, this is unique to Matthew, so we have no other references to help us.

Moving on, in Matthew 23:16-22, Jesus complained that They have Their system of meaningful swearing backwards, because they place the things that can be taken (gold, offerings, etc.) at a higher value than what is more permanent (the altar, the Temple, etc.) That makes sense if you are looking at overall significance, but if you are swearing by something as a guarantee that you will fulfill that oath, it makes more sense to do so by something you can actually lose if you fail to deliver on your promise. This is again unique to Matthew.

In Matthew 23:23-24, Jesus lamented that They focus on the minute details of the Law, but not the more important parts of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. There are no specifics here; just these general charges. It is difficult to know how they were not providing justice. As for faithfulness, Deuteronomy 11:13 is the closest reference to faithfulness within the Law, where it instructs to faithfully obey the Law. As for mercy though, there is none in the Law, literally. The only reference to mercy within the commands of the Law is found in Deuteronomy 7:2, and that says to "show them no mercy." Perhaps this is why Luke (who was a better editor) said that the Pharisees were ignoring "justice and the love of God" instead in his parallel in Luke 11:42.

In Matthew 23:25-28, Jesus accused Them of being hypocrites of cleanliness, giving themselves a clean appearance on the outside, but being greedy, wicked, and unclean on the inside. Luke 11:39-41 is a partial parallel of this section, but has Jesus saying that the Pharisees should give what they have to the poor, and then everything will be clean for them. In a loosely related parallel to the Matthew 23:27-28 reference of whitewashed graves, in Luke 11:44 the Pharisees are called unmarked graves. And while we are on the subject of graves...

Matthew 23:29-36 is the ultimate crescendo of condemnation. Jesus accused Them of being like Their forefathers who killed the prior prophets, despite the fact that They build tombs to honor those same prophets. Just to prove it, Jesus will send Them prophets who They too will kill.

You may ask: "Why is Jesus purposefully sending people to be slaughtered?" You and I know that is a morally repugnant idea, but Jesus thought that would be the ideal way to condemn Them. In Matthew 23:35, we see that They will take the blame for all sorts of injustice, including that which They held no responsibility for:

"And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar." NIV

Luke 11:47-51 is the parallel to this passage, and it carries the same overreaching assessment of blame. This is hardly perfect justice, and not what should be expected or accepted of a perfect God.

This mean-spirited chapter closes out in Matthew 23:37-39 with Jesus generally lamenting Jerusalem's rejection of God, as well as a prophesy of His return when they will have repented. In a different area, the parallel of Luke 13:34-35 has these exact same words, supporting the idea that this lamentable anecdote was just a scrap of a recorded saying without any immediate context, which needed to be fit into the Gospel wherever it seemed appropriate to the author.

Isaiah 53 - Anatomy of a Prophesy

'
Background
This week we are taking a break from the Gospel storyline to look at a particular Old Testament prophesy in great detail. It is a prophesy which is as close to being all about Jesus as you will find within the Old Testament, but how close is it? This study is in connection with the "Christian Prophesy Challenge" issued on my other blog.

Isaiah 53 - Anatomy of a Prophesy

If there is anything to be learned from political ads, it is that context is the key to knowing the truth. Couple that knowledge to the fact that there are often little-to-no explicit indications of where discrete prophesies begin and end within the prophetic books of the Bible, and it becomes apparent that you will probably need to look at the text surrounding that prophesy in order to gain the proper understanding of it.

A challenger submitted Isaiah 53 as being a prophesy about Jesus. So in our review of Isaiah 53, let us also take a moment to inspect preceding chapters and the chapter immediately following it. To save you some time, I have included copies of my chapter-by-chapter summary of Isaiah here, and have included some key notes from each chapter:

(Note: Israelite = Jew)

Chapter Summary	Notes
Isaiah 49) - God has made His sharp-speaking Servant, protected him, and chosen him to show God's glory. The Servant claims that he has labored in vain, but God will provide his reward. God made the Servant to gather the Israelites back to God, and God has been the Servant's strength. God will make His Servant not only gather the Israelites but also be a light to the Gentiles to bring Salvation to all of the earth. Although this Servant was despised and was a servant to rulers, God will make the Servant honored by kings and princes. When God chooses, He will make His Servant be a covenant and restore the exiled Israelites to Israel. They will not hunger, thirst, or be oppressed by the sun's heat. God will lead them to water and make their return easy from wherever they are. The Israelites cry that God has forsaken them, but God will never forget them. God will bring the Israelites back to Israel, and will bless them with so many offspring that they will need a larger country. The Gentiles will help bring Israelites back to Israel, and their royalty will humble themselves to the Israelites, and the Israelites will realize that God did this. God will rescue the Israelites, and make their oppressors eat their own flesh and drink their own blood. At that time, all of mankind will know God is Israel's Savior and Redeemer.	49:1) - Through metaphors, this is directed to the diaspora; the exiled and scattered Jews. 49:3) - "[God] said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor." NIV  "Israel" being a patriarch, it is almost certainly a representation of the Jews. If it is meant to be a single person, the use of the name "Israel" makes it unlikely to be Jesus given that the name means "he who struggles with God" (Reference Genesis 32:24-30). 49:4) - The Servant thinks that he may have labored in vain, which is again unlikely to mean Jesus. 49:5-6) - The Servant will bring Jews back to God and reveal God to the Gentiles.
Isaiah 50) - God asks the Israelites if they thought God had left them or sold them, or if they thought He couldn't save them. God has the strength the rescue them because He is omnipotent. God has given His Servant the right words to say. God's Servant listens to God and doesn't rebel, and let his back be beat, his beard pulled out, and his face be spit on. The Servant knows that God will vindicate him soon. Those in darkness should follow God, because those which instead follow their man-made idols will be tormented.	The emphasis of the Servant listening to God and not being rebellious further suggests the Servant is not generically all of the Jews, but specifically those who had remained steadfast in their faithfulness to God. They endured harsh criticism and even physical abuse for their impregnable faith which was held despite the exile.
Isaiah 51) - God tells the Israelites to listen to Him, because He will rebuild Israel and turn its deserts into gardens like Eden. God's law and justice will impress the Gentile nations. God's righteousness will soon come, and He will bring justice to the nations. The heavens will vanish, the earth will wear out, and people will die, but God's Salvation will last forever. God tells those with His Law in their hearts to listen (meaning the Israelites). The enemies of the Israelites will be destroyed but God's Salvation and righteousness will last through all generations. God's ransomed people will return to Israel with everlasting joy. Why do the Israelites fear their oppressors when God will soon free them, including prisoners and those in dungeons? God is finished applying His wrath to the Israelites, and will now apply it to their oppressors.	51:4) - God's Law and justice will be enlightening to the other nations of the world. 51:5) - God's Salvation was coming very soon. (Isaiah is suspected to have alive in the 8th century BCE, but some parts of the book of Isaiah are discerned to be as late as 5th century BCE. By either date, Jesus was a long way away.) 51:6) - This Salvation would last forever. 51:7) - Speaking of the subset of the steadfastly faithful... 51:16) - This parallel of 49:2 confirms the identity of the Servant as the faithful Jews.
Isaiah 52) - The Israelites are to go free and to rebuild Jerusalem in splendor because the uncircumcised and defiled will not enter there again. God sold the Israelites for free and now they will be redeemed without money. The Assyrians are acting like the pre-Exodus Egyptians, so God will punish them and prove that He is God. The Israelites should purify themselves and keep watch, because God will prepare the way for them to return to Israel. Even though the appearance of God's Servant was pitiful, God's Servant will be exalted in a way such that kings and nations will see and understand God.	52:1) - After the Jews returned from exile, impure people would never again enter Jerusalem. Amazingly, the Romans (and others) must of had God's stamp of approval. 52:4) - Pinpointing the extent of the prophesy in time, the Assyrians are mentioned.

You may have noticed that Isaiah 52 ends with some words about this Servant, so let us include those verses in our verse-by-verse look at Isaiah 53:

Verse (NIV)	Context Version	Christian Version	Notes
52:13) - See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.	"Faithful Jews" will obey God and be greatly praised and rewarded.	Jesus will act wisely and be greatly praised and rewarded.	As context has shown, this "servant" is a metaphor for the faithful Jews.
52:14) - Just as there were many who were appalled at him — his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness—	People were shocked and disgusted that the "Faithful Jews" maintained their piety, well beyond the extents of normal human reason, given how their God had treated them.	Jesus was beaten so badly after His trial that He did not even look human.	Aside from Mel Gibson's movie, there is no reference to Jesus being beaten to an unrecognizable extent.
52:15) - so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.	When the scattered "Faithful Jews" are returned from their exile, even pagan kings will recognize the power of their God, despite not having heard about Him, because of how miraculous the return is.	Jesus' purifying blood would be metaphorically sprinkled on many peoples, and kings will be astonished by His offer of Salvation.	This references Gentile kings witnessing something themselves. This is in contrast to the kings being witnessed to by others (Matthew 10:18, Mark 13:9, Luke 21:12).
1) - Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?	Who could have believed that such a prophesy would come true?	Through God's grace, Jesus' Salvation is only accepted by the Elect.
2) - He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.	The "Faithful Jews" born in harsh conditions of the Jewish exile appeared to be worshiping in vain, so the rest of the scattered Jews paid them little respect and were not attracted to their piety.	Jesus grew up in a humble existence, being the son of a small-town carpenter, and he was not attractive in any way.	You find large groups of people following Jesus around (of the 171 times the Bible mentions crowds, 127 times are in the Gospels). Indeed, John 12:19 states in hyperbolic language that the whole world has gone after Him.
3) - He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.	These "Faithful Jews" were subjected to continual scorn, mockery, and physical abuse because of their unreasonable faith, by the Gentiles and even by the other Jews, who did not like being around them.	Jesus was rejected and suffered on the cross.	As noted above, he was accepted far more than rejected. Also, this verse portrays someone who lived a life of suffering, not just some climactic suffering at the end. Jesus was esteemed (such as Luke 7:6, Luke 7:45-46) much more than men despising and hiding their faces from Him.
4) - Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by Him, and afflicted.	"Faithful Jews" suffered along with the other Jews, but more so, despite and because of their piety, such that even the other Jews considered them cursed by God.	According to Matthew 8:17: This verse is a reference to Jesus healing people. A better interpretation: Jesus suffered for our sins, yet people thought that God had punished Him for what He had done.	Matthew 8:17 quotes this verse as if it was intended to mean that Jesus removed the infirmities and diseases of the people, but it instead means that he suffered those same pains, which is implicitly part of why he was called a man of sorrows/suffering in the previous verse.
5) - But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.	Though undeserving, the "Faithful Jews" suffered the punishment God had directed at all Jews, but it was because of their suffering that the other Jews now know of this Salvation.	Jesus suffered for our sins, and the punishment enabled Salvation.	In context, the punishment is what God had wrought through the exile because of the way they had acted in Judah/Israel as opposed to just being punishment for general sins. Furthermore, the Jesus story is that He died for our sins. He was pierced after He had already died, and then only because the soldiers were surprised that He was already dead (John 19:31-37). Being dead, the piercing was not a punishment.
6) - We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.	The other Jews had turned away from God, but meanwhile the "Faithful Jews" continued to take the divine punishment.	We were the sinful ones, but Jesus paid the price for it.
7) - He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.	Yet, similar to but better than Job, the "Faithful Jews" took this punishment without any protest.	Jesus received this punishment silently.	The mention of oppression and affliction suggests of some significant quantity of time of serious mistreatment. While the "lamb to the slaughter" hints of a sacrifice, the "sheep before its shearers" speaks of enduring, almost ritualized, mistreatment over a long time. Furthermore, Jesus did speak to His accusers (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:67-70, John 18:19-37, John 19:11).
8) - By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.	While the other Jews had adapted to their exile, turning away from God and building a life for their families, the scarce "Faithful Jews" dwindled away in penitent obscurity.	Jesus was arrested without justification, yet no one protested His unfair treatment, and so He was killed for our sins.	Until they ran away in fear, the Disciples did violently protest Jesus' arrest (Matthew 26:50-52, Mark 14:46-47, Luke 22:49-51, John 18:10). Even Pilate protested that Jesus seemed to be charged without justification (Matthew 27:23-24, Mark 15:14, Luke 23:20, John 18:38, John 19:4-6).
9) - He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.	The few "Faithful Jews" who died were thought to be lowly like the wicked, but in reality they were praiseworthy in their righteousness.	Despite having done no wrong, Jesus was condemned to die with thieves, but was buried in a rich man's tomb.	The "though" is probably better translated as "because" here. This verse is backwards for Christianity. Jesus died with the wicked (Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27, Luke 23:32, John 19:18), but went to the grave of a rich man (Matthew 27:57-61, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-56, John 19:38-42). Plus, Jesus did violently (with a whip) clear out the Temple courtyard (John 2:13-17).
10) - Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.	Yet these "Faithful Jews" fully received the punishment God had intended to serve to the Jews for their sins before the exile, and so God will reward the piety of the "Faithful Jews" with prosperity, offspring, and long life.	It was God's plan for Jesus' death on the cross to be the supreme sin offering. Jesus will live eternally as a prosperous and divine king with a family of the faithful.	It is the Servant's life that is the offering, not the Servant's death. There is no emphasis on the "offering for sin." It is simply "an" offering, which seems a little underplayed for its Christian significance. Furthermore, because the Servant is alive, it speaks of offspring, as in children, and his days will be "prolonged," not eternal.
11) - After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.	The "Faithful Jews" will be rewarded for enduring this punishment, and from this the other Jews will realize God's power and purpose, and turn back to Him. The suffering of the "Faithful Jews" will cover the other Jews.	Jesus was resurrected according to plan, and knowledge of Jesus' sin offering has led many to Salvation. Jesus' sacrifice will cover people's sins.	Note that the Masoretic Text, which is considered the authoritative Hebrew text of the Old Testament, has "...he will see the result of the suffering of his soul and be satisfied..." instead of the line about seeing the light of life.
12) - Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.	These "Faithful Jews" will be exalted like other heroes of the faith, and will be richly rewarded for steadfastly holding to God regardless of the dire circumstances, for accepting God's planned punishment despite being righteous, and for pleading for mercy for the other Jews.	Jesus will be king for willingly sacrificing Himself, dying with criminals, and making intercession for sinners.	God will give this Servant “a portion among the great.” Yet according the Bible, God is giving Jesus the entire Kingdom, not just a portion (Matthew 28:18). Furthermore, "a portion" implies a sharing, but God will not share His glory with anyone or anything (Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11).

As usual, we should also consider what comes afterward for context as well:

Chapter Summary

Notes

Isaiah 54) - God, the Israelites' husband and Redeemer, God of all the earth, will restore the Israelites to Israel and they will be blessed with so many offspring that they will have to expand their boundaries into other countries, dispossessing other nations. They will not be shamed or humiliated, and will forget their earlier shame. In God's surge of anger, He briefly abandoned the Israelites. Now God is coming back to them with everlasting kindness and compassion. God swears that He will never rebuke them again, and His love and covenant of peace with them will last forever. God will rebuild Jerusalem with precious stones. God will teach their sons. They will no longer have tyranny and terror. Anyone who attacks them will not succeed, and the attack will not be caused by God. God made the blacksmith and the destroyer. No weapon or accusations will harm the servants of God.

54:3) - This speaks of capturing and resettling cities. 54:6) - A call back, which is a reference to the return from exile. They had to be there before in order to be called back. 54:7) - God will bring the exiled Jews back. 54:9) - This exile was like the flood of Noah, and God swears that He will never be angry with the Jews again. 54:15) - If anyone attacks them, God will not be the reason behind the attack. 54:17) - No attack will prevail against the Jews.

Conclusion
Isaiah 53 is not a prophesy about Jesus. In varying degrees, details in verses 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 directly conflict with the Gospel stories of Jesus. That is seven of the twelve verses of this entire prophetic chapter, or over half of the prophetic message.

In my opinion, the most notable conflicts are verse 3 (Jesus was not rejected by the masses in the manner portrayed here, and was often held in high esteem), verse 10 (offspring for Jesus, and prolonged life, not eternal life), and verse 12 (Jesus is getting much more than just a portion).

In my opinion, the contextual meaning, while often similar to the story Christianity presents, is distinctly different from being a Messianic prophesy. Instead, this Servant is merely a representation of the relatively small subset of Jews which remained devout in their worship of God throughout the exile, despite the fact that their form of religion made them the subject of prejudice, scorn, and suffering. However, note that even some Jewish scholars hold that this is a Messianic prophesy.

Yet what is clear is that Isaiah 53 is part of a larger prophetic picture, and that the picture is different than what Christianity promises. Furthermore, the differences are not just trivial, but they actually contradict what Christianity promises. These are the highlights of contradiction in the interwoven prophetic verses:

• This prophesy was for the Jewish diaspora (Isaiah 49:1, Isaiah 51:5) who had been exiled from the land of Israel for their sins (Isaiah 50:1, Isaiah 51:17-21, Isaiah 52:5).
  
• Confirming the time frame, audience, and scope of the prophesy, God drew a parallel between the Jewish oppression in Egypt and the oppression they now, or rather then, had within the Assyrian empire (Isaiah 52:4).
  
• God's Salvation would happen soon... back then (Isaiah 50:8, Isaiah 51:5).
  
• A key feature in this prophesy is the Jewish return from exile (Isaiah 49:9-12, Isaiah 49:17-19, Isaiah 52:11-12, Isaiah 54:6-7), which has already occurred, but not exactly as described.
  
• The Jewish system of land inheritance will be re-established (Isaiah 49:8).
  
• There will still be children born, generations living, and people dying (Isaiah 51:6-7, Isaiah 53:10, Isaiah 54:3, Isaiah 54:13).
  
• The nation of Israel will need to be expanded. In order to do so, the Jews' descendants will invade surrounding nations, and then settle in their emptied cities (Isaiah 54:2-3).
  
• God will protect the Jews, and even though they still may be attacked, it will not be because of God causing the attack, and the attackers will not prevail (Isaiah 54:13-17).
  
• This return from exile is an eternal Salvation (Isaiah 51:6-7, Isaiah 51:11), where God promises to show everlasting kindness to the Jews (Isaiah 54:8), and they will never be rebuked by God again (Isaiah 51:22, Isaiah 54:9)!
  
• God promises all of this as an inheritance to His servants (Isaiah 54:17). (This is not so much a contradiction with Christianity, but the reference to "servants" is significant in context to these prophesies.)
  

The Rest of the Story
Aside from the return from exile, most of the prophesy did not come true, but all of that prophetic ink could not just be ignored. It was too difficult to admit that God had failed, and in turn raise questions about their long-held faith in their prophetic texts and their God. So the rest of these Jewish prophetic points, and others, were recast to some future date in which the new Godly era would be led in by a Messiah.

The Jews were anxious for the Messiah by the time Jesus had arrived on the scene, especially due to the Roman infiltration. Yet contrary to the original prophetic vision and God's own promises here, Jesus rebuked the Jews and called for their destruction at the hands of enemies (Luke 19:41-44)! To make this prophesy conform to Jesus is to ignore that point, ignore the larger intrinsic associations with the original Jewish exile, ignore the fact that this version of eternal Salvation involved people living and dying just like they do today, ignore the implicit coexistence of Israel with other nations, and ignore the fact that these other nations have the ability to attack (if only impotently). That just seems like a really ignorant thing to do.

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.