Why did Jesus stop reading?

[steve]

Paidion,

The statement about the rooster is not problematic. Jesus, no doubt said, "Before the rooster crows twice," and Matthew deliberately compressed it, as the gospel writers often do. Only one completely hostile to the reliability of the gospel accounts would see in this case an instance of problematic contradiction.

The suggestion that Matthew was not familiar with Mark, or was unaware of what Mark said, would go against the beliefs of most scholars—viz. that Mark was one of Matthew's "sources", ruling out the possibility that Matthew was unaware of the statement as Mark recorded it. Matthew would have had no motive for contradicting Mark, so it is fair to assume that he compressed Mark's statement into one that does no violence, and provided no contradiction, to the statement as Mark recorded it. The gospel writers were clearly not anal about details that had zero bearing upon the main point being made.

On the other hand, you are suggesting that Matthew completely altered and perverted the teaching of Jesus about Moses' commands.

In the sayings about honoring parents, there is no problem between Matthew and Mark, if we assume, as all Jews and later Christians did, that there is no dichotomy between what Moses wrote and what God said. Moses spoke for God. There is no way to read the teachings of Jesus, every time He spoke of Moses, without seeing that Jesus presumed that Israel had a divine responsibility to obey what Moses wrote. Not one hint can be found in scripture that Jesus believed Moses wrote things of which God disapproved.

If Jesus approved of "Honor your father and your mother," but did not approve of "Whoever reviles father and mother, let him die the death," then how did the citation of the latter serve His polemical purposes? Why mention it? How did it function in His argument?

It was clear that the behavior of the Pharisees, for which Jesus criticized them, was a case of their failure to observe the sentiments expressed in both of these verses. Interestingly, He described their actual failure to obey these two mosaic laws as an example of their following "traditions of men" rather than "the word of God." The force and flow of the argument is not the least bit difficult to follow, unless we come to it insisting on missing the point.

No honest interpreter can fail to see that the two citations from Moses were what Jesus was referring to as "the word of God," which they were neglecting through their traditions. Ironically, you think that the second commandment cited was itself a tradition of man (the erring Moses). Why, then, did Jesus blame them for failing to observe it?

Responsible exegesis of scripture (the only way to understand the teaching of Jesus in this passage) cannot fail to point out that Jesus quoted both commands to show their contrast against the actual behavior of the Pharisees. If Jesus did not regard both commands as the word of God, why did He muddy the waters by even mentioning the second. If He did not regard it to be a divine command, then His point become moot.

If you could step back from your prejudices for long enough to ask, "What do these words of Jesus really mean?" rather than "How can I jury-rig this statement in such a way as to salvage my opposite viewpoint?" then you might be a true disciple of Jesus. No one is a true disciple who decides before listening to Jesus exactly what He will be allowed to say, and what He will not be allowed to say. You have a pet theory of Jesus, and you will not even let Jesus Himself correct you.

If we will not allow the real Jesus to define Himself, how can we escape the conclusion that the "Jesus" we are so fondly defending is, in fact, "another Jesus"?

[Paidion]

No honest interpreter can fail to see that the two citations from Moses were what Jesus was referring to as "the word of God," which they were neglecting through their traditions. Ironically, you think that the second commandment cited was itself a tradition of man (the erring Moses). Why, then, did Jesus blame them for failing to observe it?

And you, as an honest interpreter, actually believe that Jesus blamed the Pharisees for not keeping Moses' commandment, "Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die"? Incredible! Where else has Jesus ever upheld commandments to kill or blamed people if they didn't kill? He certainly didn't uphold the commandment to stone to death the woman taken in adultery.

Both Mark and Luke record Jesus' statement to the man who asked him what he must do to inherit eternal life. In both accounts, Jesus mentioned honoring parents, but didn't include the "second commandment" or second part, about killing anyone who reviles his parents:

Mark 10:19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’”
Luke 18:20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’”

In any case, I'm working on the rest of your "seven examples" and hope to gradually post my responses to each one.

[steve]

Where else has Jesus ever upheld commandments to kill or blamed people if they didn't kill? He certainly didn't uphold the commandment to stone to death the woman taken in adultery.

What an absurd argument: "Where else did Jesus ever say...?" How many times does He have to say a thing before you believe Him?

Where else, other than Matthew 5:28, did Jesus say that to look at a woman with lust is adultery in the heart? Where else, other than Matthew 5:39, did Jesus say "turn the other cheek?" Where else, other than Luke 15, did Jesus tell the parable of the Prodigal Son? We could go on and on, if we wished to make only ridiculous arguments. If Jesus said something only once, do you feel at liberty to ignore His statement, or refuse to take it into consideration in your seeking to understand His teaching? Are you serious?

Both Mark and Luke record Jesus' statement to the man who asked him what he must do to inherit eternal life. In both accounts, Jesus mentioned honoring parents, but didn't include the "second commandment" or second part, about killing anyone who reviles his parents

So what? It is not my purpose to catalogue how many times Jesus spoke without saying a particular thing. Our responsibility is to take seriously what He actually said, on the occasions when He actually said it. This responsibility, you dodge in a manner that can only be viewed as deliberate.

Give a sensible alternative understanding of why Jesus quoted the law about the penalty for cursing one's parents (I mean an explanation alternative to the obvious one that on draws from grammar, vocabulary and context), and I may begin to think you really care what Jesus taught more than you care about defending your alternative Jesus.

[Paidion]

Where else has Jesus ever upheld commandments to kill or blamed people if they didn't kill? He certainly didn't uphold the commandment to stone to death the woman taken in adultery.

What an absurd argument: "Where else did Jesus ever say...?" How many times does He have to say a thing before you believe Him?

There's nothing absurd about my question, not if Christ didn't uphold such a commandment even once, and I'm convinced he didn't. The point in my question was that if your understanding of his words is correct, one might expect him to have spoken elsewhere about God's commandments to kill, since Moses and the prophets are full of such commandments.

I might point out that it is your evaluation of my arguments with words such as "absurd" as you've used above, and many other such that you've done in the past (which come close to being personal attacks) that have deterred me from answering your "seven examples" that you think are so effective in supporting your views, and then imply that it is the weakness of my arguments that prevent me from responding. Well... I am no longer going to permit such bullying to shut me up. I WILL respond to each of your other so-called "examples."

[Candlepower]

If by coming to fulfill the law, Jesus had meant that he came to carry out in practice everything the law of Moses required, then when the Scribes and Pharisees brought to him the woman caught in adultery with the question, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” Jesus would have replied, “The Law is clear. She must be stoned!” But instead, Jesus saved her from being stoned to death, and then said to her, “Go and sin no more.” For Jesus fulfilled the law of God that takes precedence over the law of Moses, especially in those cases where the law of Moses is contrary to the law of God. Law of Moses: death for the adulteress; Law of God: life for the adulteress and deliverance from her wrongdoing.

Why should we believe that the Pharisees of John 8:4 were telling the truth about the woman they alleged was an adulteress? I don't see a need to believe automatically anything they said...ever! They were, as Jesus said later in the same chapter, murdering liars like their father the Devil. But folks assume those liars were actually telling the truth about the woman. I don't assume it. They may have been truthful in this instance, or they may not have been. On what basis would one assume they were telling the truth?

Jesus did not accuse the woman of adultery, neither did He deny it, nor did she admit it. In a fair court, the ACCUSED PARTY is PRESUMED INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. That's a Biblically based principle. It's not unreasonable to presume that the woman was innocent, but many automatically take the lying Pharisees side and jump to the conclusion that she was guilty. Interestingly, in the end there weren't even any accusers! Court dismissed!

To say that Jesus was letting the woman off the hook and abrogating capital punishment for adultery is not supportable from the text. First, she was accused by people Jesus characterized as liars. A person who has a reputation as a liar is certainly a weak witness in court. Second, she was never convicted of the crime, so you can't say she was "let off." If I am cited for speeding and I appear in court to contest it, and the officer who clocked me does not show up in court, the judge does not "forgive me" and let me off. He simply throws the case out because there is no accuser. And it would certainly be absurd for everyone to infer that speeding was no longer illegal just because my case was dismissed.

But this is exactly what many folks do in the case of the woman of John 8:1-11. They unfairly presume her guilty despite the absence of proof. That's very poor jurisprudence. Furthermore, they go on to conclude that just because Jesus dismissed the faulty case before Him, He must have thereby abrogated capital punishment for adultery. That's Illogical. Jesus' purpose in this case was not to change the Mosaic law, but to reveal the rotten character of the Pharisees. They were "testing Him that they might have something of which to accuse Him." But Jesus turned the table all the way around and exposed their guilt. That's the point here. I'm glad that gang of hypocrites was at least "convicted by their conscience." Christ clearly pricked their hearts. Perhaps they were among those who later became Christians. I hope so.

By the way, Jesus never said, "Don't stone her." In fact, He said "stone her -- if you are without fault." He said this not to turn the Law of Moses on its head by making law enforcement impossible, but to turn the Pharisees on their heads. In His statement, Jesus was simultaneously endorsing Moses and discrediting the Pharisees. Someone in this thread pointed out that for a "trial" to be a legitimate, the unfaithful man would have to be present as well as the woman. Which is true. Jesus treated the incident as a charade. Which it was.

Some folks conclude that when Jesus said, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first,” He was setting a new standard by which all punishment is to be conducted. They figure, "Only sinless people may punish: nobody is sinless: therefore nobody may punish." They think there ought to be no punishment ever for anything bad, because we're all bad. They actually think that's what Jesus is teaching in John 8. These folks are, basically, anarchists.

Some make way too much of John 8:1-11. It wasn't an attack on Moses, and it wasn't an abrogation of punishment for crimes. It was simply another instance of Jesus humbling the Pharisees, which he often did. It is important that our theology be dictated by exegesis. The reverse is not exegesis at all; it is simply concocting a personal religion based on feelings and opinions.

I have written this post in terms of a courtroom drama. But John 8:1-11 was not a courtroom. Jesus was (among other things) a Teacher, but not a civil judge of Israel. He (or perhaps John) identified His purpose in John 3:17 -- "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." The Mosaic Law wasn't really the point of Jesus' teaching in His encounter with the Pharisees in John 8:1-11.

[Paidion]

The statement about the rooster is not problematic. Jesus, no doubt said, "Before the rooster crows twice," and Matthew deliberately compressed it, as the gospel writers often do. Only one completely hostile to the reliability of the gospel accounts would see in this case an instance of problematic contradiction.

And your implication (is it not?) is that I am one of those persons "completely hostile to the reliability of the gospel accounts." That accusation is ludicrous! Of course I believe the gospel accounts are reliable, and I think you very well know that. What I don't believe is that the writers of them were inspired in such a way that the words they wrote in the gospels were infallible and without error. I also believe in the reliability of the history book I studied in high school, but I don't believe it was flawless in all of its statements.

I have said nothing about a "problematic contradiction" in connection with these two differing accounts concerning the rooster crowing. There is no contradiction at all, but there is an inconsistency. The probability that Matthew's words "before the rooster crows" implies a single crowing is supported in the words that follow Peter's denial. Likewise Mark's words "before the rooster crows twice" is supported by his account of Peter's denial.

Mark:
And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came, and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and said, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.” And he went out into the gateway and the rooster crowed. And the servant girl saw him and began again to say to the bystanders, “This man is one of them.” But again he denied it. And after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.” But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.” And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.

Matthew:
After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.

[steve]

There's nothing absurd about my question, not if Christ didn't uphold such a commandment even once, and I'm convinced he didn't. The point in my question was that if your understanding of his words is correct, one might expect him to have spoken elsewhere about God's commandments to kill, since Moses and the prophets are full of such commandments.

You should be aware that we do not have very many samples of the teaching of Jesus (only 39 occasions out of a three-year ministry), nor a full range of circumstances in which He had occasion to express His views. However, we do have some, and those are the ones we must use to determine what Jesus taught and believed.

When I began to seek to know the Lord, I was eager to form my understanding of His person and teachings from all that is preserved in the reliable records that we have left to us by the gospel writers. I was unwilling to decide—or, certainly, to teach— what Jesus taught or believed on a subject until I felt confident that I had incorporated every relevant statement and story of His that would have bearing on the question at hand. This strikes me as the only honest and safe way to reach convictions about Jesus.

That is why I find your approach so shocking. You will allow one or two verses, taken in isolation, as your basis for the complete reconstruction of Christ's teachings on a major topic—verses that sensible biblical students and scholars have never seen to teach what you think they teach—and you will do so even when there are an even greater number of Christ's statements on the same question that contradict your conclusions. If you think my responses are getting personal, it is because they are. It is not your view so much as your personal agenda that has become so offensive.

If a person is a total pacifist (like a Mennonite), I do not find this offensive. However, when one exhibits duplicitous twisting of relevant scriptures in order to conceal the flaws in his pet view, I lose respect and begin to recognize a character issue in the man himself. When such a deceptive approach is used to redefine Jesus Himself, it becomes difficult to imagine any case that better would justify the label "heretic."

I might point out that it is your evaluation of my arguments with words such as "absurd" as you've used above, and many other such that you've done in the past (which come close to being personal attacks) that have deterred me from answering your "seven examples" that you think are so effective in supporting your views, and then imply that it is the weakness of my arguments that prevent me from responding. Well... I am no longer going to permit such bullying to shut me up. I WILL respond to each of your other so-called "examples."

Oh no! Please don't throw me into the brier patch, Br'er Fox! How terrifying you must think it to me for you to actually attempt answer my questions! However, if the same dishonesty is exhibited in your answers, do not complain when I point it out. That is the service that all of us are here to provide for each other.

[Paidion]

Some make way too much of John 8:1-11.

You can never make too much of that passage!

It wasn't an attack on Moses, and it wasn't an abrogation of punishment for crimes. It was simply another instance of Jesus humbling the Pharisees, which he often did.

Simply another instance of Jesus humbling the Pharisees? Surely it was much more than that. It was yet another clear record of one of the loving acts our Lord Jesus and his heart of forgiveness. He is the essence of LOVE as his Father is. Indeed, Jesus is another exactly like his Father; he is the exact image of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3).

Jesus often rebuked the Pharisees, but yet he loved them, even as he loved the woman. He said that he didn't condemn the woman. Like his father, he never punished people, but corrected them if necessary. He knew this woman was ready to forsake her wrongdoing and be delivered of it. But to solidify it, he told her, "Go and sin no more."

Jesus' depiction of his Father was not one of a God who punishes and/or kills for any refraction of his law, but One who is kind to evil and ungrateful people, and that if we do the same toward people, we will truly be children of the Most High (Luke 6:35). And he instructed his disciples to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, and by so doing be the children of their heavenly Father, since the Father himself make his sun rise on both evil and good people, and sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:45).

The apostle Paul wrote that God's kindness is meant to lead us to repentance (Romans 2:4). I'm sure he learned that either directly or indirectly from Jesus himself. Otherwise, Paul (having been a Pharisee) might have written that God's punishment (or penalties) is meant to lead us to repentance. That's what many people think is the function of punishment ("That'll teach him a lesson"). But retributive, penal punishment usually does nothing but create resentment. However, kindness and loving correction often leads people to a change of heart and mind (which is what "repentance" is).

[Paidion]

However, if the same dishonesty is exhibited in your answers, do not complain when I point it out.

You are the only person I've ever known who has accused me of dishonesty. What is the basis for this accusation? Just the fact that I disagree with you concerning the character of God? Or that I disagree that your arguments prove that He kills people, even for minor offenses? If your accusation has any basis in reality, please spell it out for the other readers so that they will be clearly aware of my dishonesty, too.

[steve]

I have not refrained from telling you my reasons for this. It is not that you have a different view of the character of God than my view, but that you insist on defending a view of God contrary to that of Jesus and the apostles (as well as Moses , David and the prophets). You are not afraid to claim that they were mistaken where you are correct. Since you will not allow even them to correct you, I am not surprised that I am unable to do so.

You will not allow Jesus to speak for Himself. You habitually make the most invalid, counterintuitive arguments about the meanings of statements that plainly contradict you, in order to disarm a verse that plainly proves you wrong. An honest man would stand corrected by the scriptures.

I am sorry that it is you to whom I have to say these things. I wish it were a stranger, and not a friend. However, no one can serve the body of Christ faithfully while being a respecter of persons. Your mishandling of the relevant texts is so transparent, that I cannot believe you are doing it by accident. Believe me, I seldom speak this harshly to anyone, regardless how mistaken they are. I save such language for those who exhibit obstinance and dishonesty in their handling of scriptures. You obviously do not answer to me (and you are probably glad that you don't), but if I am not allowed to speak rebuke to you, I don't know whom you will allow to do so.