Post Mortem Epiphany

'
Background
Jesus, with His cross, was led to His fate; crucifixion. Hung there between a couple thieves, Jesus was ever the mild servant of God, taking insults graciously and granting Salvation to a repentant thief. From noon to 3 P.M., the sun stopped shining, and Jesus asked why God had forsaken Him. Then Jesus died, the Temple's curtain was torn, there was an earthquake, and dead holy men were resurrected.

Post Mortem Epiphany

You do not know what you have got until it is gone. Or so it is often said. And it just so happens that that realization of loss is what we find portrayed by some unlikely sources immediately after Jesus' death. Let us take a look at the reactions of those standing by Jesus after His last breath.

Matthew 27:54-56, Mark 15:39-41, Luke 23:47-49, and John 19:31-37 reveal the reactions of people near Jesus at the time of His death. Let us begin this study with the first written Gospel of the set; Mark. Starting with Mark 15:39, we read:

And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard His cry and saw how He died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!" NIV

So this is a centurion's reaction, a division leader in the Roman army. Implicitly, this man was Roman, and that makes it very likely both that he was polytheistic and that he recognized Caesar as divine. So it is strange, to say the least, that the centurion would claim that Jesus was the Son of the singular, Jewish God. However, it is possible that he had heard the story of Jesus and had come to believe. (As you may remember, earlier in the Gospels there were reports of other believing centurions.)

Note what had convinced this centurion of the "truth": hearing Jesus' cry and seeing how He died.

Now, "how He died" may be intended to imply the greater picture of how Jesus reacted to being put on the cross, how He handled the taunting and insults while on the cross, the miraculous three hours of darkness prior to His death, etc.

However, being coupled with the conjunction "and" to the cry that Jesus had made suggests a more immediate relationship; as in literally how Jesus died. It is probably safe to assume that this would not have been the first crucifixion that the centurion had witnessed, and there was something particularly different about the way that Jesus died. Perhaps it was the relative speed of Jesus' death, or an expression of peace and calm on His face, or a gentle transition from life to death, or even the possible witnessing of Jesus' spirit leaving His body. This is just speculation, given the lack of detail in the account, but the words seem to convey that there was something truly special in the manner in which Jesus died.

Mark 15:40-41 adds that there were some women watching from a distance, including a couple Mary's and Salome, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, and "cared for His needs". Well, a man has got needs, you know. ;-) Despite the fact that this implies gender roles where certain burdens are placed on women as a higher priority than the "important work" which the male Disciples were doing, and despite the fact that it is odd for multiple women to have to care for Jesus' needs alone as opposed to having the women portrayed as helping with the needs of the larger group, specifically noting the contribution of these women is a respectable and honorable sentiment.

Yet with the three hours of darkness preceding Jesus' death, it is a little odd that more people than just the centurion are not recognized as having the same epiphany that he did.

Matthew 27:54 changes the scene a little to be more consistent with his uniquely reported earthquake and mini-zombie apocalypse:

When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely He was the Son of God!" NIV

So now we have the centurion and his accompanying soldiers claiming that Jesus was the Son of God. And why? Because of something special in the way He died? No. Because they had been frightened by the darkness and the earthquake.

Like Mark, Matthew 27:55-56 also mentions women, who had cared for Jesus' needs, watching from a distance, including a couple Mary's and the mother of the Zebedee brothers.

Luke may have been a better editor than Matthew, in that he appears to have noticed some of the issues with Mark's version. Luke 23:47-48 reported::

The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. NIV

So Luke changed the centurion's expression into a more realistic one; not that he recognized Jesus as the Son of God, but that he recognized (presumably based on both Jesus' actions and God's reaction of stopping the sun from shining for three hours) that Jesus must have been a righteous man who was now wrongfully crucified.

It was not only the centurion, or his soldiers, who had this epiphany. The rest of the crowd who had come to gaze at this spectacle had this same revelation, as is implied by the report of them beating their breasts; an cultural display of mourning, and possibly repentance, as observed in Isaiah 32:12-13, Jeremiah 31:19, Ezekiel 21:12, and Nahum 2:7.

This mourning crowd was not made up of Jesus' followers, as, according to Luke 23:49, those who believed in Jesus were watching from a distance, along with the women who had followed Jesus. Luke oddly left out the bit about these women caring for Jesus' needs. Perhaps he also recognized how strange it appeared that multiple women were addressing Jesus' needs, or may by he just got tired of copying.

Now for something completely different. In John 19:31-37, there is no epiphany, or even a centurion for that matter. Instead, submitting to a request from the Jews, Pilate ordered for the crucified people to have their legs broken and to be taken down from their crosses during the Passover Sabbath (John 19:31). Strangely, the soldiers carrying out that task removed the thieves on either side of Jesus first (John 19:18) as opposed to progressing across the lineup of hanging men in a serial pattern (John 19:32).

When they finally came to Jesus (in the non-religious sense of those words), they just then discovered that He was dead (John 19:33). This is an huge contradiction to the Synoptic Gospels which record people reacting to Jesus' blatant moment of passing! But then, in John's version, Jesus' moment of death was much more reserved, having Jesus simply bow His head and give up His spirit, which would have been much easier to miss (John 19:30).

Anyway, the soldiers reacted like many guys do when they come across a corpse unexpectedly; they poked it with a stick. In this case, the stick was a spear, and they punctured Jesus' side with it, reportedly causing water and blood to rush out (John 19:34).

The next verse in John is what I would call a classic liar's tell. In John 19:35 we read:

The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. NIV

It is true. You can know that it is true, because the guy who saw it gave this report, and his report is the truth, because he knows that he tells the truth. Oh please. Why is it that all of the rest of the preceding Gospel of John has been given without any claim of a truth-telling eyewitness until this one point? I will tell you why:

It is a lie. If it were true, there would have been more than just this one eyewitness to make the claim that this sequence of events actually occurred, like the group of Jesus-following witnesses watching from a distance reported by the other three Gospels. Furthermore, there would be no need to vehemently claim that it was true any more than for any of the other far-more-unbelievable events recorded previously in this Gospel. Sure, Jesus walked on water and raised Lazarus back to life after he had been dead for days, but this whole being stabbed on the cross and having water and blood come out of the opening, well, I am going to need a little proof for that...

Now, why would anyone lie about something like this? Well, to fulfill Scripture, of course! Any shred of apparent credibility to support your lie is always advantageous, and prophesy provides one of the best forms of that credibility. And if you are wiling to lie to make a connection to prophesy, why not tweak the Scriptures to make a prophetic match too?

John 19:36 tells us that these events transpired to fulfill the prophesy that "not one of His bones will be broken". Even favorably assuming that none of the bones in Jesus' ankles or wrists were broken in the process of being nailed to the cross (which is highly unlikely), the problem is that there is no such prophesy. The nearest match comes from Psalm 34, which speaks of how God protects righteous people in general. Such is the sentiment we find in Psalm 34:19-20:

The righteous person may have many troubles, but the Lord delivers him from them all;
He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken. NIV

If the generalized sentiment is not strong enough to realize that this "prophesy" is not applicable, then consider that it says that God would save people from their troubles, which is pretty much the opposite of God letting an innocent, righteous person get killed on the cross.

John 19:37 provides another prophetic match; that "They will look on the one they have pierced." At least this is an actual prophesy as opposed to being just part of a song. This comes from Zachariah 12:10, and, of the little bit of the verse copied here, John almost gets the wording correct. More significant than a minor word adjustment is the fact that it is this prophesy has been severed from its context to make the match. Zachariah 12 is a prophesy about God turning the leaders and people of Jerusalem into an unstoppable, militarily conquering force which consumes "all the surrounding peoples" as part of a counter-attack from the city of Jerusalem being under siege. The verse right before this noted prophesy, Zachariah 12:9, has God defiantly claim:

On that day I (God) will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem. NIV

If I know my history correctly, that did not happen the day that Jesus died, nor any time after that.

Furthermore, if you read the remainder of the prophesy, Zachariah 12:10-14, what you encounter is each of the individual clans of Israelites in mourning; a reference to the old national layout when the Jewish clans each occupied a different region of the Promised Land.

And why are they weeping? Because they have done God wrongfully. If you know the background behind this prophesy, the reason that Jerusalem was under siege was as a punishment doled out by God for the people breaking the provisions of His covenant. So when God steps in to aid His Chosen People, as is foretold in the prophesy, it is then they will come to the full recognition of how poorly they have treated God, and they will appropriately weep in repentance.

Bringing this study to a close, Let us review. We have seen contradictions from one account to the next regarding what actually happened when Jesus died, a liar's tell in the claim of truth, and misapplied prophesies used to help support the claim of Jesus' Messiah status. None of these issues, individually or collectively, indicate that Jesus was not crucified. However, any claim beyond that should obviously be given a healthy dose of scrutiny.

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.

A Cross to Bear

'
Background
The Priests held a trial against Jesus, but they had difficulty assigning any witnessed crime against Him until they came to blaspheme. Then they took Jesus to Pilate to have justice rendered.

Pilate conducted his own, apparently superficial, investigation of Jesus, and ultimately decided that He was innocent of any crime deserving death. So Pilate declared Jesus' innocence and tried to get Jesus released, but the crowd asked for a different son-of-the-father to be released instead, and demanded Jesus' crucifixion. Pilate reluctantly relented to the crowd's demand to have the Jesus killed, and inexplicably had Jesus flogged as an unrequested, unrequired bonus-punishment despite finding Him innocent.

A Cross to Bear

Each of us has a little cross to bear; a little challenging act of self-sacrifice for the sake of righteousness. Or so it is said. The metaphor comes from the literal act of Jesus carrying His own cross to the site of His crucifixion. Let us take a look at the steps taken by Jesus from condemnation to crucifixion.

The time from sentencing to the crucifixion is covered by Matthew 27:27-35, Mark 15:16-24, Luke 23:26-34, John 19:17-18 + John 19:23-24. As usual, we will begin by looking at Mark first, given his influence over Matthew and Luke.

Mark began by telling us that, right after Jesus was sentenced and flogged, soldiers took Him inside the palace (the Praetorium), where they put a purple robe and a crown of thorns on Him, beat Him up, and mocked Him as the "King of the Jews", before leading Him out for the crucifixion (Mark 15:16-20).

Anyone familiar with the story of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib facility can understand this kind of behavior out of the soldiers handling Jesus. It seems very plausible... until you remember that there were no Gospel-writing eyewitnesses to what went on inside of the palace, and Jesus left the palace without that purple robe. At best, this mockery and beating is hearsay, but we will see indications later on suggesting that it is a work of fiction.

Next we have the strange bit where, on the way to the crucifixion, the soldiers forced a man named Simon to carry Jesus' cross (Mark 15:21-22). There is no explanation as to why that occurred, which is odd. Most believers came to the conclusion that Jesus was buckling under the load of the cross due to his flogging and beating injuries. That is a plausible explanation.

On the other hand, on the skeptical side of the fence, the odd name dropping and cross transference without explicit reason is suspicious. Perhaps a man named Simon was used as a "celebrity" eyewitness to help make converts in the early days of the movement by claiming to have carried Jesus' cross for Him. But that is fairly wild speculation...

Next, we get to a rather curious verse, Mark 15:23:

Then they offered Him wine mixed with myrrh, but He did not take it. NIV

Wine mixed with myrrh? Myrrh? Myrrh was one of the gifts to the baby Jesus (Matthew 2:11). Myrrh was also used as part of Jesus burial dressing (John 19:39). Myrrh was a highly aromatic oil, used in the nearly-illicit verse of Song of Songs 1:13:

My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts. NIV

I am not sure how myrrh would taste, especially myrrh resting between breasts, but it certainly appears to be a highly desirable substance, none-the-less. (Wikipedia suggests bitter and spicy, as it was used medicinally.) Beyond that, there appears to be no significance to this myrrh-wine offering, but do not worry. We will find one in a moment.

After the offering, they crucified Jesus and then cast lots to see who would get Jesus' clothes. If you are not familiar with "casting lots", it is essentially like rolling dice to see who rolls the highest number. It is somewhat easy to imagine soldiers wanting to cash in on the misfortune of their charges, but you have to keep in mind that Jesus was freshly flogged (Mark 15:15) and beaten up (Mark 15:19). If so, that would be a rather repugnant garment, full of blood, and perhaps little bits of flesh and scabs. It is hard to believe that anyone would want that... but believers do want to fulfill "prophesy", which is why that is in there. Enter Psalm 22:18:

They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment. NIV

Wow. Another prophetic match. Until you read the next three verses where the speaker/prayer of Psalm 22 is pleading with God to save his life from the fate which was set before him. There is no humble submission to God's will (Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42), or recognition that this was going according to God's plan (John 12:27) which would be thwarted if God intervened. Then of course you have the possible cognitive dissonance of God (Jesus) wanting something different than God (the Father). There are many other issues in this Psalm as well, which you can read about in my thorough analysis of Psalm 22.

OK, what about Matthew? Matthew makes my work easy. He essentially copied Mark, so much so that it reminds me of a report I did in third grade where I copied the text from the encyclopedia, making only minor word changes. :-)

There was one important change in Matthew. In Matthew 27:34, they mixed gall, not myrrh, into the wine offering. That we have a Scriptural "prophesy" match for. In Psalm 69:21, you find:

They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst. NIV

This does not appear to be a good match, as the gall was put into food, not into drink (wine). However, according to the Jewish poetic structure of the verse, the gall-in-food and vinegar-for-thirst are really meaning the same things: they gave me horrible tasting stuff on which to sustain myself. So in that sense, it does match.

Yet the "prophesy" as whole does not match. You may remember from the post about Judas being replaced that this same "prophesy" was used in regards to how Judas would be killed, but Judas was not the one giving out the gall here. However, while there are issues with Psalm 69 (mostly do to the speaker praying for God to get him out of the fate before him), it is a far better match here than in Peter's pathetic tie-in to Judas in Acts 1:20.

Note that it could also be a reference to Lamentations 3:15, where gall is imbibed. However, in Lamentations 3, it was God who made the speaker drink the gall. :-) Plus, we should remember that Jesus refused this wine mixture, whatever it was.

On to Luke. As we have noticed before, in this latter section of the Scriptures involving Jesus' Passion play, Luke took some artistic liberties in rewriting this story.

Luke never mentioned that Jesus was given a crown of thorns. That omission is very odd, as it seems like such a powerful visual image; one found in the other three Gospels. My guess is that Luke accidentally lost this detail in the act of re-crafting the story. Luke also dropped the bitter wine offering, quite likely because he saw it as being redundant with the wine vinegar offering which would occur later (Luke 23:36).

Speaking of re-crafting, you may also remember that Luke had the episode with Jesus given a purple robe occur back when Jesus was sent to Herod, before Jesus was sentenced to crucifixion (Luke 23:11). The advantage of Luke's version is that there could have been eyewitnesses to the robe, as Herod sent the robe-wearing Jesus back to Pilate.

Like Matthew and Mark, Luke 23:26 does mention Simon carrying Jesus' cross.

Luke 23:27-31 uniquely includes a report of a large crowd following Jesus to the cross, weeping and moaning along the way. Of course, that really makes you wonder... where was this large crowd when the crowd was demanding unanimously that Jesus be crucified? ;-)

Luke 23:32-34 then concludes with the crucifixion and the soldiers casting lots for Jesus' bloody garment. Luke did add detail in those verses about thieves who were crucified with Jesus (which Matthew and Mark will cover later), and added Jesus' interesting, often-quoted words from the first part of Luke 23:34:

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." NIV

That is really a kind and wonderful sentiment. Of course, it is easily argued that none of Jesus' opposition really knew what they were doing in condemning Jesus to crucifixion. So if ignorance is an excuse worthy of forgiveness, everyone is off the hook, especially non-believers! ;-)

That brings us to John. John, always the rebel, claimed that Jesus did His own cross-carrying (John 19:17)! We cannot necessarily call this a contradiction with the other Gospels, as presumably for some amount of time Jesus did carry His own cross before Simon was forced to carry it.

John 19:18 also mentions the two other people crucified with Jesus.

There is a fairly insignificant twist where John discussed the dividing of Jesus' clothes. According to John 19:23-24, Jesus was wearing (at least) five pieces of clothing, and only Jesus' underwear (certainly the bloodiest piece) was the subject of the lot casting.

Summing all of this up, what do we have? Reports without eyewitnesses. Name dropping and forced-cross-carrying without reason. "Prophetic" references which do not match well when the entire "prophesy" is compared against the circumstances. A discrepancy regarding when and where Jesus received His purple robe. A crowd of Jesus-supporters who were conspicuously absent during Jesus' sentencing. An huge loophole of forgiveness to those who lack understanding. And strangers strangely desiring Jesus' bloody clothing. It is just a little too odd to be true, right? I would not make an answer solely based off of this study, but you really should ponder these things more deeply.

Jesus Is My Co-Pilate

'
Background
Judas left Jesus and the other Disciples to enact his betrayal. After meeting with the authorities, he led them back to where Jesus was. Judas then identified Jesus to the authorities by kissing Him (Matthew, Mark), unless Jesus stopped the kiss from happening (Luke), or instead Jesus identified Himself and for arrest as soon as the authorities arrived (John).

After the arrest, the Priests struggled to find any charges against Jesus, but they ultimately decided that Jesus had blasphemed by calling Himself the Son of God. So they bound Him up, and sent Him to Pilate. (Before {Luke 22:63-65} and/or after {Matthew 26:67, Mark 14:65}, that trial, Jesus was mocked and beat by the soldiers who had custody of Him.)

Meanwhile, Peter, who had been waiting outside the High Priest's house, ended up denying three times that he had known Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:56-62, John 18:17-27). That happened just as Jesus had predicted.

Jesus Is My Co-Pilate

Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Besides the more mundane administrative affairs of state, one crucial role is ensuring that the rule of law is enforced. Without law, you have chaos. You might as well be ruling cats. Law requires some form of justice. Let us take a look at the justice rendered by arguably the most infamous prefect in history; Pontius Pilate.

The Priests had bound Jesus, and delivered Him to Pilate for ultimate justice. Like any good minister of justice, Pilate questioned Jesus about His crimes. Well, not really. In this post, we will cover that inquisition captured in Matthew 27:1-14, Mark 15:1-5, Luke 23:1-16, and John 18:28-38.

We will start with the source, Mark. According to Mark, right after Jesus was handed over to Pilate (Mark 15:1), in Mark 15:2 we see this question and answer:

"Are you the King of the Jews?" asked Pilate.
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. NIV

This leaves us with the question of how Pilate came to think that Jesus should be called the "King of the Jews". As we know from last time, blaspheme was the charge against Jesus, so when did it come up that Jesus was a King?

Plus, there is the even bigger question of how this little snippet of dialog is recorded! There were no Disciple eye-witnesses here.

Anyway, after that question, the Chief Priests accused Jesus of "many things", and Pilate was amazed that Jesus gave no reply to these multiple charges against Him (Mark 15:3-5). What are these "many" accusations, when there was only the charge of blaspheme against Him? Who knows? Of course, again, we should also ask who knows that there were actually "many" accusations, given the lack of Jesus-aligned eye-witnesses?

That is it. With that paltry investigation, Pilate was allegedly able to discern both that Jesus had been arrested out of jealousy (Mark 15:9-10) and that Jesus was innocent (Mark 15:14). That would make for a pretty shoddy episode of CSI!

Seriously though, while we should not assume that all of the pertinent information about the investigation is recorded here, we do have a lack of details which are critical to Pilate reaching a judgement on Jesus, which is odd, to say the least. It is as though the story-teller could not think of a crafty way to reasonably resolve the dialog in Jesus' favor, and so chose to leave a gap instead.

Matthew 27:1-14, with some clarifying word changes, is essentially identical to Mark's account, except that Matthew aggregated into that passage the parallel account of Judas repenting his act of betrayal, throwing his money back to the Priests, and then hanging himself in shame.

Luke, of course, was a better editor than Matthew. While Luke missed the lack-of-eye-witnesses issue, he fixed the issue with the out-of-nowhere question from Pilate about Jesus being a King by having the Priests make their accusations first, as Luke 23:2 shows:

And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king." NIV

So now we know why Pilate asked Jesus about being a King, but Luke created some other problems. For starters, where is the blaspheme charge? Next, why are the Priests accusing Jesus of opposing taxes when He did not oppose taxes? Of course, this does paint the Priests as being all the more evil, as they were willing to distort the truth in order to have Jesus killed by appealing to Roman law as opposed to God's Law.

Yet with that fix, it makes Pilate's investigation appear all-the-more inadequate, as Pilate goes straight from asking Jesus if He is King (Luke 23:3) to declaring Jesus' innocence (Luke 23:4).

Luke also added in more detail. After Pilate (miraculously?) found no basis for charges against Jesus, the Priests mentioned how Jesus had been stirring up people all the way from Galilee. Galilee was Herod's district, who just happened to be in Jerusalem, so Pilate sent Jesus to Herod for investigation. Herod asked Jesus "many" questions, and the Priests accused Jesus in front of Herod, but Jesus gave no replies. So Herod sent Jesus (with an elegant robe) back to Pilate (Luke 23:5-11). Pilate gathered the Priests and the people together (Luke 23:12-13) to make the public (and therefore witness-able) declaration we find in Luke 23:13-15:

and [Pilate] said to them, "You brought me this man (Jesus) as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined Him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against Him. Neither has Herod, for he sent Him back to us; as you can see, He has done nothing to deserve death." NIV

It is strange that this public declaration, including the mention Herod's judgement, is not covered by any of the other three Gospels. (In fact, Herod is not mentioned at all in John; not for the Massacre of the Innocents, for the beheading of John the Baptist, or for his role in examining Jesus.)

Even more strange is how Luke later spun Herod's involvement in Jesus' death. Referencing the first couple of verses of Psalm 2 as "prophesy", in Acts 4:25-28 we see:

"You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of Your servant, our father David:

‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against His anointed one.’

Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed. They did what Your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." NIV

So somehow Pilate and Herod finding Jesus to be innocent adds up to conspiring against Jesus! That is ludicrous! This is yet another instance were we find the truth stretched to fulfill a prophesy.

If Luke is ludicrous, John is laughable. There, Pilate's investigation of Jesus happens inside the palace with no eye-witnesses, because the Jews did not want to sully themselves on the holiday (John 18:28). So Pilate went out and asked the Priests what charges they had against Jesus, to which they responded that Jesus was a criminal, without giving any specific charge (John 18:29-30).

Pilate then did what any Roman law keeper would do: he told the Priests to judge Jesus according to Jewish Law (John 18:31)! Ha! That seems extremely unlikely, but it certainly is possible, especially if Pilate was just trying to get rid of this annoyance so early in the morning. Anyway, the Priests objected because they did not have the authority to conduct executions (John 18:32).

So Pilate went back inside the palace to question Jesus. And his first question? You guessed it. From out of nowhere, Pilate asked Jesus if He was the King of the Jews (John 18:33). Instead of Jesus essentially answering "yup" as in the other Gospels, we get more dialog (recorded without eye-witnesses) of Jesus explaining that His Kingdom was "not of this world" and "from another place", and that people "on the side of truth" listen to Him (John 18:34-37).

Based on that, ahem, painstakingly thorough line of questioning, Pilate asked "What is truth?" and then went out to tell the Priests that he finds that Jesus is innocent (John 18:38).

Lacking any sense of jurisprudence, in all four of the Gospels, Pilate is portrayed as absolutely inept at getting to the truth of the matter and thereby rendering effective justice. Jesus is declared innocent with only the most superficial and indirect line of questioning. Although many Christians like to vilify Pilate, in a way, he is a model of Jesus. Not that Pilate was a sin-free self-offering of God, but that it is Jesus who will allegedly serve as the mediator of God's wrath, and His ultimate qualifying question determining your guilt or innocence will be of the most superficial nature: did you believe in Me?

Judas Fish, Part 4: The Aftermath

'
Background
This background will run a little differently than most posts, focusing on the background of Judas Iscariot, as we wrap up his story and this series. It is a story which has been fishy from the beginning...

From the time when the Twelve Disciples/Apostles are introduced to us, Judas Iscariot was labeled a traitor (Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16). In the Synoptic Gospels, that is all you know about Judas until he actively began to betray Jesus, but in John, Jesus implied that Judas would betray Him long before that (John 6:70-71) and Judas was branded both a thief and a traitor when he was given the dishonor of being the one who complained about the waste of money in anointing Jesus with expensive perfume (John 12:4-6).

When Judas allegedly initiated the betrayal of Jesus with the Chief Priests, the Gospels are unclear as to whether he did so on his own, or was controlled by Satan, or was merely influenced by Satan. Even more suspiciously, the Gospel writers recorded more than they could have possibly known regarding the conspiracy, including timing and precise details of this clandestine meeting, as well as Satan's level of influence. Conspicuously, one of the known unknowables is the sum of money exchanged for the betrayal; a sum that conveniently tied into a prophesy. (As usual, this "prophesy" did not hold up to scrutiny when its context was considered.)

During the Last Supper, Jesus revealed that one of the Disciples would betray Him. According to Matthew and John, Judas was explicitly identified as the traitor, but only John records Judas leaving the dinner party at that point, while the other Gospels imply through silence that he stayed with them. Another prophesy referenced Jesus' betrayal by a trusted friend, despite the fact that, according to John, Jesus never trusted Judas. Also according to John, Satan entered Judas once he was identified as the traitor, and yet the other Disciples are portrayed as being clueless as to why Judas left the dinner.

When the hour came, Judas sprang into action, leading men to Jesus to arrest Him. For some strange reason, Judas needed to identify Jesus to the arresting party, despite all of Jesus' miracles and public teaching sessions, and he did so with a kiss... at least according to Matthew and Mark. Luke had Jesus stop the kiss from happening, and John has no reference of a kiss whatsoever, but instead has the arresting party fall down in reaction to Jesus' willingness to let Himself be arrested. In the scuffle, or lack thereof, one of the Disciples cuts an ear off of the High Priest's servant, but only in Luke is there a mention of Jesus miraculously healing of that ear, and Luke curiously neglects to provide any details of the reactions to that miracle.

Sorting through all of these inconsistencies makes the whole story of Judas as the evil traitor seem a bit fishy. Let us see what fleshes out as we follow the aftermath of this Pisces plot.

This is Part 4 of a four part series entitled "Judas Fish." The series entries are:

• Part 1: The Setup
• Part 2: Betrayer Revealed
• Part 3: The Kiss of Death
• Part 4: The Aftermath

Judas Fish, Part 4: The Aftermath

Anyone who is familiar with Christianity knows the aftermath of Jesus' arrest; the trial, rejection by the crowd, hanging on the cross, death, and resurrection. However, not nearly as many people are familiar with the story of what happened to the man who betrayed Jesus; Judas. So, what did happen to Judas after the arrest? That depends on who you ask...

Do not "ask" the Gospels of Mark and John, because they do have an answer. And why should they? After all, if Judas was really a traitor, how and why would any of the Disciples know about his whereabouts and activities after the arrest? He was no longer with them. All that we know from Mark 14:21 (copied word-for-word in Matthew 26:24 and partially in Luke 22:22) is that his fate would not have been not good:

"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." NIV

Of course, not knowing what happened to the man who was responsible for the death of the Savior is not satisfying to our sense of justice! How could Judas have turned against an innocent man and his Salvation?!?! Well, do not worry. Justice was served... possibly. That really depends on your idea of justice.

In Matthew 27:1-10, you will find one type of "justice". Seeing Jesus arrested finally made it all clear to Judas, as we discover from Matthew 27:3-5:

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That’s your responsibility."
Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. NIV

Judas repented. That "evil" man had a change of heart, one that pained him so much that he would rather be dead than to live with memory of his incredible failing. It was the ultimate contrition, as in how Psalm 51:17 renders it:

My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise. NIV

Yet if we are to believe Jesus' words noted above about Judas' fate, God did despise Judas' repentant heart, despite the words of Isaiah 59:20:

"The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins," declares the Lord NIV

and Jesus' own words in Luke 15:7:

"I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." NIV

To have Judas repent, but still be punished for his sins, does not mesh well with the message of Salvation. Matthew created quite a paradox in punishing a repentant sinner, even with a sinner as "vile" as Judas.

That is not the only issue Matthew created either. Matthew 27:6-10 records the dilemma the Chief Priests had with what to do with the money Judas had thrown at them. They chose to buy a field with it in which to bury foreigners which they called "The Field of Blood" as a reference to the blood money which bought it; an action which had greater significance than they realized, as Matthew 27:9-10 tells us:

Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me." NIV

If you search Jeremiah, you will not find this prophesy at all, nor in the entire Bible, yet Matthew quotes this as if it is in there. Matthew was likely using some corrupted version of the Scriptures. Yet even in that degenerate version, like we see in too many other NT prophesy references, Matthew ignores the verse's own context. The verse clearly states that they used the money to buy a field per God's command, but the Chief Priests were under no such direction!

The closest reference in the "legitimate" version of Jeremiah is Jeremiah 32:6-9, where someone is fulfilling a prophesy and buying a field for silver, but there is no blood money, no potter, and the price was seventeen silver pieces. The closest reference in all of the Bible comes from Zechariah 11:12-13

I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So
they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price
at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them
into the House of the Lord to the potter. NIV

Not surprisingly, this prophesy, too, misses the mark for many reasons, including the lack of a field purchase, but at least there is a potter, a thirty-piece silver payment, and those pieces of silver being thrown into the Temple.

So Matthew has issues, even without considering who was around to record Judas' conversation and money throwing. What about Luke? Luke does not actually mention anything in his Gospel about Judas' fate. Instead, we have to go to Acts, which he also had a hand in authoring.

In Acts 1:15-26, after Jesus went up into Heaven (Acts 1:9-11, because we all know that Heaven is "up", right?), the eleven remaining Disciples decide that the leadership gap left by Judas' departure should be filled. Acts 1:18-19 revealed Judas' fate:

(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) NIV

This is quite a different story than the one told by Matthew; one that drips with the blood of vengeance. Judas does not repent. Nor does he give back his ill-gotten wages, but rather uses them to buy a field. In a case of sweet irony, Judas tripped and fell in that same field, incurring a mortal injury in that "accident". Contrary to Matthew, Acts claims that it is Judas' blood, not Jesus' blood, which gives the field its name.

Why is the account in Acts so different than Matthew? Well, to fulfill prophesy, of course! We see in Acts 1:20:

"For," said Peter, "it is written in the Book of Psalms:
'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,
'May another take his place of leadership.'" NIV

Ah, we have two different prophetic verses to explore. What will we find?

The first one comes from Psalm 69:25. Psalm 69 is essentially a prayer request to God. Looking at Psalm 69:24-26 for more context, we find:

Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them.
May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents.
For they persecute those you wound and talk about the pain of those you hurt. NIV

First, let us consider that these verses are asking God to apply His wrath, not to change hearts and minds for Salvation.

Next, we see that there is a pronoun agreement error between Peter's version (his) and the actual psalm (their). Maybe that is acceptable if we include Judas as one of a larger group, but that is unlikely.

Even more significantly, we find that Peter changed the ending of the verse he quoted; from "in their tents" to "in it". People "in their tents" may refer to laborers, militia, or family. In other words, the prayer is about God making "them" less prosperous. Meanwhile, Peter's "in it" alters the intent, just making it about the land being barren.

Finally, it is amusing to note that the very next verse states that the reason God should apply His wrath to "them" has nothing to do with betrayal, but rather involves mocking those who God is hurting! Yes, God hurts people purposefully. The Father will spank you! ;-)

How about the next prophesy (using that term loosely)? It comes from Psalm 109:8. Psalm 109 is yet another prayer for wrath. Looking at Psalm 109:6-8 for expanded context, we find:

Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy; let an accuser [a.k.a. Satan] stand at his right hand.
When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him.
May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. NIV

Strangely enough, in Psalm 109:6, "an accuser" is called to oppose this target of wrath. That "accuser" is the same word you find interpreted as Satan. In other words, the prayer is for Satan to oppose this person; for to Satan oppose Judas, as if Satan is working for God... That is perfectly consistent with the Old Testament portrayal of Satan, but less consistent with Christianity. Anyway, Satan did not oppose Judas, but rather (possibly) spurred him on in the act of betrayal of Jesus.

The bulk of Psalm 109 is spiteful, and not at all consistent with turning the other cheek and offering forgiveness. For example, Psalm 109:10 calls for the man's children to become beggars, and Psalm 109:14 asks that his father and his mother also have their sins never forgiven them.

Speaking of spiteful, and of Judas' leadership opening being replaced, we see in Acts1:25 an interesting allusion:

"...to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” NIV

Where exactly does Judas belong? As discussed previously, Luke was a firm believer in Hell, as in the fire-and-brimstone, eternal torture version. So, to Luke, that is where a traitor like Judas belongs.

At least, that may be somewhat of a fitting end for Judas if he had not repented, if his story had not been so inconsistent and self-contradictory, and if the referenced prophesies had not been cherry-picked out of context and altered. In other words, if we had any kind of notion of what the truth was back then, then maybe we could make a judgement of Judas' worthiness for Hell...

But, wait a moment. Maybe we do have some information. Maybe there was a Freudian slip somewhere in Scriptures to reveal a hint at the truth. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, we find:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all He appeared to [Paul] also, as to one abnormally born. NIV

Paul records that Jesus appeared to the Twelve after His resurrection, not the Eleven. Judas was with the other Disciples, which is exceedingly odd for a man who had hung himself prior to Jesus getting hung on the cross... unless the whole, rotten, fishy story of the betrayal was made up.

This makes me wonder: What if Judas' betrayal was not of Jesus, but of the Disciples? What if Jesus was never resurrected, but instead His Disciples came up with that idea, and at some later point Judas refused to go along with that scheme?

Or, what if an imposter claimed to be Jesus resurrected, and, while the other Disciples bought off on him, Judas remained skeptical? That latter suggestion actually has some strength to it, as the Disciples and others are recorded as having difficulty recognizing Jesus after the resurrection (Matthew 28:16-17, Luke 24:13-35, John 20:14, John 21:4). In other words, what if Judas was not as much a traitor than a whistle blower, who was killed mafia-style for becoming a threat to the "family" of believers? That sure makes more sense to me than what is being passed off as the "truth" here.

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.

The Paradoxical Son of David

'
Background
While Jesus was teaching in the Temple courtyard, several members of the religious elite had tried to harass Jesus and get Him into trouble with tough questions. They asked Him about paying taxes to Caesar and about the seemingly contradictory nuances regarding Resurrection. They also asked what was the greatest commandment, to which Jesus gave them both the first (love God) and second (love your neighbor) greatest commandments (Matthew 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-34). Then Jesus had a question of His own to ask...

The Paradoxical Son of David

Jesus, being both man and God, creates some theological issues, to say the least. It is no small feat to bind the infinite within the finite. Theologians, and fools like myself, like to pointlessly ponder the degrees in how you could be both omniscient and ignorant, both omnipotent and feeble, both holy and common, etc.. But there are matters in more dire need of discernment, as they are matters of what the Messianic prophesies say and how Jesus could possibly fulfill them; matters with which even Jesus struggled.

In Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37, and Luke 20:41-44, we find essentially the same anecdote where Jesus apparently clarifies an issue of prophesy. There was a common belief that the Messiah (a.k.a. the Christ) would be born from King David's lineage, but there is a fundamental problem with Jesus being just another child born in David's lineage because, well, Jesus is God! Also, calling someone a "son of David" applies a greater reverence to David than to that so-called person, but clearly Jesus is supposed to be more honorable than David.

And so, in Luke 20:41-44, we see:

Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ [a.k.a. the Messiah] is the son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:
'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." ' David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" NIV

Jesus has quoted Psalm 110:1 here. Psalm 110 is a short, somewhat ambiguous seven verse song which is mostly about God providing military victory and judgement over many nations, heaping up dead bodies along the way. If you want to dig into the details of its ambiguity and why it may not be the way that Jesus said it was, read the "Psalm 110 in Deep Detail" section below. That section should also be helpful if you are having trouble sleeping at night. ;-) Anyway...

Yeah, what is the deal with people saying that the Messiah is the son of David? Now, they do not mean the literal son of David, given that David had long been dead by Jesus' time, but rather someone from David's lineage. You know, like you see referenced in Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:6-16, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 9:27, Matthew 12:23, Matthew 15:22, Matthew 20:30-31, Matthew 21:9, Matthew 21:15, Mark 10:47-48, Mark 11:10, Luke 1:27, Luke 1:32, Luke 1:69, Luke 2:4, Luke 3:23-31, Luke 18:38-39, and John 7:42.

Now if you study through those references to the "son of David," you will find that most of them are what generic people are saying about Jesus, and therefore are not to be taken as inherently being true. Mark and John contain only these types of hearsay comments, and thus are not in any conflict with Jesus' sentiment here. However, Matthew and Luke are not on that same page. For example, in Matthew 1:1 the Gospel writer opens his tale of "truth" with:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: NIV

How is it that Matthew could say that Jesus was the son of David? Well, Matthew 1:6-16 goes on to explicitly make that connection in lineage, and further emphasizes that family connection through Joseph in Matthew 1:20.

Now Luke was a better editor than Matthew was. He was too clever to fall into that trap of conflicting with Jesus' own words on genealogy. So when Luke 3:23-31 provides a connection from Jesus to David in genealogy, in Luke 3:23 he starts off with a disclaimer:

Now Jesus Himself was about thirty years old when He began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,... NIV

With the phrase "so it was thought," Luke permits us to believe that really God was Jesus' father, not Joseph, and so there is no conflict with Jesus' later words. Thereafter in Luke, you only find those generic declarations noted above.

However, while Luke was smart, he was not brilliant, and he was prone to error just like any of us. So when he wrote the story of Jesus' birth, he was far too excited, or too distracted with writing fulfilled prophesy, to notice that he did slip up on this issue. In Luke 1:27, he also emphasized Joseph's connection to David, and in Luke 1:32, we have the angel pronouncing to Mary that:

[Jesus] will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David,... NIV

It was not only Matthew and (sort of) Luke, who claimed Jesus to be a son of David, but in Romans 1:3 and 2 Timothy 2:8 Saul/Paul also claims that Jesus was a descendent of David. John, the author of Revelation, claimed that an elder told him that Jesus was of the "root" of David (Revelation 5:5-6). And last, but certainly not least, in Revelation 22:16 we see:

“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” NIV

So there you have it. Jesus has contradicted Himself. Again.

And there is a very good reason why this family connection was made. The prophesies about the Messiah often claimed that he would come from David's lineage, as you can see in Isaiah 16:5, Jeremiah 23:5, and Jeremiah 33:15, among other places. But this becomes a paradox, because Jesus was not Joseph's son, but rather God's Son, and so there is no bloodline connection to David, and thus these prophesies cannot really be fulfilled by Jesus. It is no wonder why so many Jews had rejected the story of Jesus: it is not what God had promised.

Psalm 110 in Deep Detail
Jesus claimed that Psalm 110 is prophetic, and that David called Jesus "Lord," or specifically "my Lord" as the case is here. Is that a valid interpretation? This is a tough matter to discern, for sure, so let us take a moment to look at it deeper.

The phrase "The Lord said to my Lord" is made up of only three Hebrew words, and those words are in a slightly different order. They are "declared Yahweh lords," or "neum Yhvh ladonay" in the transliterated Hebrew, where "ladonay" is a variant of "adonay." You have to fill in the missing articles and prepositions yourself. If you look at how "ladonay" is typically translated, you will find that it is often "the Lord," and often combined with prepositions; "of", "for", "by", and "to" the Lord. The word "my" never occurs in Bible translation for "ladonay" other than Psalm 110:1, but in common Hebrew speech, adonay (or adonai, yet another variant) is literally translated as "my lords/owners/masters," where the pluralization is done to show extra respect due to a singular, distinguished being. You find the combination "adonay Yhvh," or "the Lord Yahweh," 290 times in the Bible, but Psalm 110:1 is the only case in the Bible where you find the reverse order of "Yhvh ladonay," so we have no other verses to directly compare. With all of that in mind, it appears that the "The Lord said to my Lord" interpretation Jesus used is valid, but you could also make the case that "Declared Yahweh of/to/for/by the Lord" and "Declared Yahweh, the Lord" (similar to "Declared the Lord, Yahweh" we see in Isaiah 3:15, Jeremiah 2:19, Ezekiel 5:11, and 70+ more times) are equally valid translations. That latter option works well, unless you are looking to make a connection to Jesus. ;-)

So as you can see, the interpretation is arguable, but let us consider that it is properly "The Lord [Yahweh] said to my Lord." Who then is "my Lord?" Is it Jesus, as He is claiming? Well, as noted above, the "my" is subjectively added and could easily be other things. If David really did mean "my Lord," it would be awkward for him to be referring to himself, but is that enough to prove that this is about Jesus?

Context is key, but the context here is ambiguously awkward for Jesus as well. For example, Psalm 110:2 has God (Yahweh) saying that He will help extend the power of this "Lord" such that he will rule among his enemies. That seems more like what happens when conquering hostile nations than what Jesus has promised. There is talk of troops being ready for war in Psalm 110:3, but God will not need troops at all in the final battle per Revelation 20:9. In Psalm 110:4, God swears an oath to this Lord, but God swearing an oath to Himself (as Jesus) is a strange concept; yet it makes perfect sense for God to swear to a man to give him some assurance of the promise. In Psalm 110:5-6 we do find references to a day of God's wrath when judgement takes place, but it is hard to say that it is meant to be THE Judgement Day, given that there are other, generic days of wrath and judgement referred to in the Bible, such as Job 21:27-30, Isaiah 3:14, Jeremiah 1:16, and Ezekiel 22:24.

The Psalm is a little less ambiguously awkward if we consider it to be referring to King David himself. David did have several military conquests of enemy nations, many of which are summarized in 2 Samuel 8:1-14, matching very well with the war references within the Psalm. As 2 Samuel 8:6 and 2 Samuel 8:14 indicate, these victories were given to him by God.

In Psalm 110:4, God swore to make this Lord a priest after the order of Melchizedek. It is interesting to note that Melchizedek was the king and God's priest in Salem (Genesis 14:18). Salem would later become Jeru-salem. So David was the king of the same city. There were noted priests at the time of David: Zadok and Abiathar were priests; and Ira was David's priest. However, no one was classified as the High Priest. It is arguable that David acted as the High Priest (the scenes in 1 Chronicles 24:31, 2 Chronicles 8:14, 2 Chronicles 23:18 certainly suggests so), but David was never explicitly called a priest (unless you can count Psalm 110:4). David's sons may have also acted as priests (2 Samuel 8:18), which also suggests David having priestly role, given that priesthood was usually dictated by family lineage.

Now what about the part of being a priest "forever?" I think that this was God effectively saying that He was granting David the title of "priest," and that title would never be stripped from him. He would be a priest as long as he lived. I do not think that the eternal promise of priesthood necessarily extended to his progeny. So, just like Melchizedek died, and no one speaks of priests from his lineage, so too was to be the case with David. David's progeny were not promised an eternal priesthood.

Add to that the references of Melchizedek and David literally ruling the same city and acting as priest, and David's God-helped military conquests, and you have at least a reasonable case that this Psalm is about David, not Jesus. Reasonable, but not "rock" solid. ;-)