Jesus and the disciples
Jesus and the disciples
Of the various topics these articles cover, this is obviously a critical one. The prior articles have raised various objections to other aspects of the Bible, but if we have reasonable evidence that what the Bible says about Jesus is accurate, then we simply must find a way to reconcile other portions of the Bible, even if that means not viewing them as literally as some would like. Everything else becomes secondary if the core Christian beliefs about Jesus are true. So let’s see what we find.
Liar, Lunatic, Lord
Let’s start with a well-known argument put forth by C. S. Lewis, since it comes up frequently. I will attempt to summarize it. First consider three possibilities:
Liar: Jesus was not what he claimed and knew it.
Lunatic: Jesus was not what he claimed and did not know it.
Lord: Jesus was what he claimed.
If we consider Jesus as a wise moral teacher, that implies certain positive attributes that wouldn’t fit with being a liar or lunatic. Therefore we are left with no middle ground. Jesus cannot be regarded as a wise moral teacher without concluding he is Lord.
It is a clever argument. It is also tricky and flawed, in that it presents the choices in stark terms that do not allow for any nuance. It also does not present all of the logical options, forcing us to choose from a subset. Let’s look at the choices Lewis does give first.
The Liar option supposes that a man so depraved as to pretend to be the Messiah would not be able to present any morally worthwhile teaching. But history has shown that it is quite possible for a person to stand in front of others and claim to be what they are not. I find it highly unlikely that televangelists that pile up wealth coaxed from people that cannot afford it actually believe one word of what they are saying. Some infamous examples are included in this list. Even if you give them a pass, there are ordinary pastors that have lost their faith but continue on, not the least because that is their career. There is an organization devoted to supporting clergy members of various faiths that no longer believe, some having left the ministry but some still serving. It is all too plausible for someone to teach morals while knowingly lying about their belief in the basis for those morals.
The Lunatic option supposes that someone with mental illness is incapable of moral or profound thought, but this isn’t uniformly true. For example, there are many people who have believed they are Jesus. Obviously some of them are swindlers, but some of them are just mentally ill, yet they present reasonably moral teachings. And what about John Nash, the subject of A Beautiful Mind? That movie took liberties for the sake of storytelling, but the idea is that, despite significant mental illness in some respects, he was quite capable of brilliant thought otherwise. The lunatic option is built on a false premise.
This all misses the real big problem though, in that there are more options than the three presented. One option that is left out is the Legend option: Jesus was a historical figure, but did not say or do many of the things attributed to him. Like many famous people, the legends about him grew over time. This option is what most scholars essentially believe. Lewis and other apologists don’t consider this option because they are starting from the viewpoint that the Bible Must Be True. But for people that are examining the Bible neutrally, this is an entirely logical possibility.
There is yet one more option. For the sake of having it start with an L, I’ll call it the Literary device option. It is similar to the previous, except that Jesus didn’t exist at all. He was created as a character for the sake of telling religious and moral stories. It is a less common view, but there are indeed scholars that hold it, and it too is a logical possibility.
Though this is a popular argument with apologists, because of its many flaws, it generally only carries weight with people that have already decided all of this Must Be True. So let’s set this aside and look at evidence that is more substantial, the Gospel accounts.
The Gospels
By far, the most significant knowledge we have of Jesus comes from these four accounts. There are two pretty different ways to look at them, however. The conservative view is that these are four different accounts written (or dictated) by first hand witnesses (or, in Luke’s case, an associate of Paul) not long after the events took place. The majority of scholarship holds a different view, though, that the writings came a bit later, and were not from people close to the events. We will look at each perspective in turn, to see which presents a more coherent view.
I should note that I put together my own lengthy table that compares different events and statements made in the different Gospels, for the sake of comparing and contrasting them. It is somewhat rough, since it was meant for my own use, but it is here if you want to see it.
The conservative view
Cold-Case Christianity is a book written by a detective, J. Warner Wallace, who considers all of this from the perspective of investigating a cold case; that is, a case that was never resolved due to insufficient evidence. Cold cases can be investigated decades after they have happened, and the parallels in trying to reconstruct evidence and testimony are clear. Wallace raises many interesting points, but one broad theme is that multiple witnesses to an event will naturally have different and apparently contradictory accounts, based on their various personal backgrounds and their locations relative to the event itself. These are all ideas that are well established, and I have no problem with them as such.
We have to be careful in how these ideas are applied to this situation, however. One key point is that elements of different accounts that might appear to be contradictory may well not be, once the perspectives of the witnesses are considered. But what if they are, in fact, contradictory? A crime is one thing, but the Bible is another. These are not just human accounts, but they are supposed to be inspired by God, so finding actual contradictions would be a real problem. Let’s consider some possible examples of exactly that. (I should note that a lot of the following examples come from Bart Ehrman’s book Jesus, Interrupted. If any of this seems interesting, you should read the book, because I am not attempting to provide all the context and explanation he provides, and it really is worthwhile.)
The genealogy of Jesus
Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 each provide a genealogy. For ease of comparison, I’ve stripped them down to a list of names and put them both from oldest to newest.
Luke starts all the way back from Adam, versus Abraham for Matthew, but that is fine. The problems start with David. The lineages completely diverge at that point, then come back together for a couple names at Shealtiel, then diverge again. Clearly Luke also has a lot more steps between David and Joseph. Some people try to explain the differences as one lineage being for Mary, but both texts clearly state they are for Joseph.
Slaughter or census?
Matthew and Luke each depict a significant event in Jesus’ childhood that none of the other Gospels do. Matthew tells of Herod commanding a slaughter:
“Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi.” (Matthew 2:16, NASB95)
Luke insteads tells us of a census:
“Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.” (Luke 2:1–6, NASB95)
It is hard to imagine the other writers not thinking it was worth mentioning a massacre of children, but beyond that, there is an actual contradiction that is not apparent without knowing the historical context. Herod initiated his massacre after Jesus was born, but Quirinius initiated his census right before Jesus was born, so the order of events is Quirinius’ census followed soon after by Herod’s massacre. The problem is that apparently there are many established historical sources that tell us that Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod’s death. Both of these events could not have happened as described.
In an earlier article, I made the statement that though Lee Strobel claims to be an objective seeker of truth approaching Christianity as an investigative journalist would, it is not so. He is someone who apparently believes Christianity Must Be True but represents himself as objective, and on that basis he has sold many books. Here is another example to support that contention. Strobel mentions in his book an eminent archaeologist that claims to have found coins with microscopic lettering that purportedly demonstrates that there was in fact a Quirinius in power at the right time to solve the problem described above. However, that “eminent archaeologist” is nothing of the kind. There are many problems with his alleged coins, including that no one has seen them except him, and he has never produced pictures of them, just drawings! You can read more about that here. A serious investigator would never include “evidence” like this.
Where was Jesus after his baptism?
John records John the Baptist baptizing Jesus starting here:
“The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, NASB95)
The next day Jesus is walking and gathering disciples:
“Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. And Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them, “What do you seek?” They said to Him, “Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?” He said to them, “Come, and you will see.” So they came and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.” (John 1:35–39, NASB95)
It continues on in 1:43 saying the next day Jesus went to Galilee, and then in 2:1 it says on the third day there was the wedding in Cana.
Mark records something different:
“In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.” Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness. And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him.” (Mark 1:9–13, NASB95)
John tells us what Jesus did for at least the next three days after his baptism, and Mark says he immediately went into the wilderness for forty days.
Was Jairus’ daughter already dead?
Both Mark and Matthew have the story of Jairus asking Jesus for help before the woman with the hemorrhage touched his clothes, but they have Jairus describing the situation differently:
“One of the synagogue officials named Jairus came up, and on seeing Him, fell at His feet and implored Him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death; please come and lay Your hands on her, so that she will get well and live.”” (Mark 5:22–23, NASB95)
“While He was saying these things to them, a synagogue official came and bowed down before Him, and said, “My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live.”” (Matthew 9:18, NASB95)
For or against?
There are people clearly for Jesus and people clearly against. What about those that haven’t taken a position one way or the other? Jesus says there is no middle ground and that, by default, you are for or against him. But which one?
““He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30, NASB95)
“John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. “For he who is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:38–40, NASB95)
When was Jesus crucified?
As background to this, there are a couple things I should bring up as to how Jewish society worked, though you may well know these things:
Their day begins at nightfall. So their Sabbath is on Saturday, but it begins on what we think of as Friday night.
Passover was preceded by a Day of Preparation, when they would have a lamb slaughtered by the priests and would prepare from that their meal for that evening, which would start the next day, Passover.
With that, we can look at some verses. Mark 14 has the following:
“On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, “Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?” And He sent two of His disciples and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him; and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is My guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?” ’ “And he himself will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; prepare for us there.” The disciples went out and came to the city, and found it just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover. When it was evening He came with the twelve. As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me—one who is eating with Me.”” (Mark 14:12–18, NASB95)
From there, the account describes the Last Supper, then proceeds to the garden of Gethsemane, and then to the trial before Pilate, with Jesus crucified at 9 AM on Passover.
“And they crucified Him, and divided up His garments among themselves, casting lots for them to decide what each man should take. It was the third hour when they crucified Him.” (Mark 15:24–25, NASB95)
It does later say that too was a preparation day, but in preparation for the Sabbath. Unless they time looped and lived the day over, the preparation for the Passover happened the preceding day.
We can contrast this with John’s account, which starts in Chapter 13. It too is before the Feast of the Passover, and it describes a meal, as well as the washing of the disciples’ feet. It too proceeds to the garden, to the trial, and then to the crucifixion:
“Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” So they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified.” (John 19:14–16, NASB95)
Notice that this happens on the day of preparation for the Passover, at noon. This is not just a case of the authors having a different angle on what happened, but an outright contradiction in their facts. We will come back to this example, because there is an interesting reason for the disagreement.
The empty tomb
There are so many differences in what the various accounts record here that it is hard to summarize, but I’ll try, by comparing different details between them. Really though, reading the four accounts side by side for yourself will convey it best. These are not just different perspectives on the same event, but accounts that disagree in multiple, material ways.
Ascension
When and where did Jesus ascend into heaven? This, too, depends on which book you read. If you read Mark, it happens right after he appears at their table after the resurrection. He gives them a few final instructions and then ascends.
“Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen…So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.” (Mark 16:14,19, NASB95)
In Luke, he appears in their group as well, but then he escorts them to the outskirts of town, and ascends there. It is the evening of the third day, or possibly the next morning, because the story of the road to Emmaus tells us that two “of them” (disciples?) went that very day to Emmaus and then left in the evening to return to Jerusalem, finding the apostles and others together.
“While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit.” (Luke 24:36–37, NASB95)
“And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.” (Luke 24:50–51, NASB95)
It is almost universally regarded that the author of Luke is also the author of Acts, essentially writing a two volume account. So it is strange that Acts gives us yet another timeline, where Jesus remains for forty days and then ascends. This version also includes a couple angels appearing.
“To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.” (Acts 1:3, NASB95)
“And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”” (Acts 1:9–11, NASB95)
What does it take to be saved?
This is the last topic I will consider in this section, and obviously it is a big one, so big that I will not consider it exhaustively here. Rather, we will look at two selections that should illustrate the point. The first contains the famous John 3:16:
““As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:14–18, NASB95)
Here the only criterion is belief in Jesus. It explicitly says that whoever believes shall not perish and shall have eternal life, repeating the same concept from opposing angles for emphasis. We are also told that Jesus did not come to judge but to save. Now compare that to this much less quoted passage:
““Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17–20, NASB95)
Verse 17 I’ve heard come up in the context of certain theological points, but rarely, if ever, continuing to verse 20. There is no mention of belief in Jesus here, but rather it is all about keeping the Law. Not only that, but doing so in a more sincere or effective way than the Pharisees and scribes. This sounds very much like being judged.
If no other example has made the point, hopefully this one illustrates the problem with trying to consider all of these accounts as different views of one common narrative. I have no doubt someone who is convinced all of this Must Be True can find some way to reconcile these verses, but looking at them with no preconceived notions, they describe two different means of salvation that are 180 degrees apart.
There is another way to look at these things, though.
The historical-critical view
Historical criticism considers each writing in its own historical context. It looks at the writing in relation to the situation of the author and the intended audience. Related to this is the consideration of how manuscripts spread and change over time as they are copied and modified, perhaps even starting as oral traditions first.
The reality is that the Bible is not nearly as neat as it is presented to us in church. There is doubt over authorship, disagreement over which books are accepted as canonical, the fact that we only have copies and not originals of the manuscripts, and so on. As Bart Ehrman describes in Jesus, Interrupted, this is standard education in seminaries, yet once the students complete their training, they return to churches to teach and effectively leave it all behind, reverting to a devotional approach to the Bible. One can only assume that they believe they are doing the lay person a favor by not confusing them with a bunch of academic analysis. From the view that all of this Must Be True, that argument can be rationalized; it is all moot since the end result is an inerrant Bible anyway, so why confuse matters? A more intellectually honest approach, however, is to teach it the way it is and let people decide for themselves what to do with the info.
Manuscripts
The first important thing to consider is that the Gospel accounts were written decades after the events they describe. (The range of estimated dates for Jesus’ crucifixion is from year 30 to 33). The authors were not walking around writing in their notebooks as they traveled with Jesus. Even very conservative views, as in Evidence That Demands a Verdict, acknowledge this, though they place the writing much earlier than the majority of scholarship does (which they label as liberal). This info is taken from page 43 of that book:
The next thing to consider, which compounds the problem, is that we don’t have any original manuscripts, only copies. Evidence claims that there are tens of thousands of manuscripts, thereby making the NT very well attested, but the reality is most of those are redundant copies, or fragments, or translations. Of the ones that are actually meaningfully unique, they don’t agree with each other, to the point where researchers can’t tell which is a copy of which. Richard Carrier goes into a lot more detail about all this (and other things). So not only are there decades between the events and the first manuscripts, there are also decades between those manuscripts and the earliest copy that can be deduced.
Authorship
The conservation assumption is that the Gospels’ titles are to be taken at face value, e.g. The Gospel According to Matthew was actually written by Matthew, disciple of Jesus. But note that the texts themselves do not indicate their authors. These titles were added in order to lend credibility to the manuscripts. It certainly would be an odd way for an author to actually title their own work by including their name, e.g. The Chronicles of Narnia According to C. S. Lewis. Further, the earliest references by the church fathers did not use these titles. You can find a deep dive on the matter of titles here.
Simply for the matter of convenience, I will use these names as the typical shorthand, e.g. “Mark says…” means “the Gospel according to Mark says…”.
Sources
As noted earlier, Cold-Case Christianity compares the reconstruction of the life of Jesus from the Gospel accounts to the process of investigating a crime many years after the fact. One important difference is, though the crime may have events and planning leading up to it, the crime itself generally occurs in a relatively short time frame. With the Gospels, we ostensibly have witnesses that traveled with Jesus for the several years of his ministry, not to mention the backstory that is provided. Trying to recount the most important parts of a multi-year experience with people that spent nearly all of their time together seems like a different sort of endeavor than, say, recalling the details of a bank robbery.
I was trying to think what a comparable experience might be. One might be a group of college buddies all writing their own remembrances years later of one particular friend in the group (let’s call him Joe) from their four years together. There would likely be certain memorable events that they all recounted in some fashion. They would each likely have some memories unique to their own accounts. But what would be quite unlikely would be two of them (let’s call them Andy and Bob) including the same stories as a third (let’s call him Charley), with very similar wordings, but with Charley having no unique stories of his own. If we saw that, we would conclude that Andy and Bob used Charley’s writing as a starting point.
Using this sort of reasoning and other clues, scholars have concluded that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke used it as a starting point. In my analysis, I could see for myself that Mark contains nearly nothing not found in Matthew and Luke. Matthew and Luke also contain many passages in common with each other but not found in Mark. Scholars hypothesize the existence of another source of material called Q that both authors also used. It is also possible that, instead of there being a Q, Luke used Matthew as a source, but for whatever reason this is a less common view. And then John comes along later and goes off in its own direction. John is so different that there is a term for the other three, the Synoptic Gospels.
Independence
In all my years of going to church and studying the Bible, it has always been from the view that the four Gospels were all pieces of one larger tapestry. As I showed earlier, there are certainly many issues that arise with that view, but since that view was presented as a fundamental, self-evident truth, I learned to live with and rationalize the textual tensions it creates. In Ehrman’s book, however, he raised an idea I had never considered: each Gospel is an independent work, with its own perspectives and objectives. Reading them from that view, I must say, was eye-opening. As I hope to show to some degree, they each become much more understandable and coherent. It was like someone found a couple more seasons of Lost that actually explain everything. Let’s look at each in turn and see what they have to say.
Mark
Given the contention that this is the earliest account, it stands to reason that this has the least developed themes of the four. This one is the shortest and lacks many of the most commonly referenced episodes in the Gospels. I should note that, because this forms the basis of Matthew and Luke, I will be going more in depth on this account than the others.
The nature of Jesus
Origins
Right from the start we can see the minimal nature of this account. There is no virgin birth, no angels visiting Mary, and in fact no mention of anything special happening with Mary at all. There are no genealogies tracing Jesus back to David. There is actually no mention of Joseph ever, not even when the crowd is saying, more or less, they know Jesus and his family, so who does he think he is?
““Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him.” (Mark 6:3, NASB95)
There are also no wise men or shepherds, and no census or massacre of children. The account begins with a brief introduction to John the Baptist, followed by the baptism of Jesus, and then his ministry begins. It is worth noting that only Jesus sees the Spirit descending on him:
“Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”” (Mark 1:10–11, NASB95)
Aside from one mention by Jesus of the sheep scattering when he is arrested, there is little mention of prophecy. The author does not try to connect Jesus to the fulfillment of prophecy.
There is one unique thing I found, which I can see why later accounts would not copy. The synoptic gospels all have the account of Jesus teaching and his mother and brothers looking for him. However, only Mark has the detail that they think he has lost his senses:
“And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.”” (Mark 3:20–21, NASB95)
Son of God
This title is used throughout the Gospels (though it is used least here). It is important to note that being called the son of God does not necessarily denote divinity, but rather being favored by God. We can see how it is used elsewhere in the Bible. It is said of Israel:
““Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn.” (Exodus 4:22, NASB95)
“When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.” (Hosea 11:1, NASB95)
It is said of David:
““He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you.” (2 Samuel 7:13–15, NASB95)
It is also said of angels. They are more than human, but they are not God:
“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6, NASB95)
Why do I bring this up? Because this account does not explicitly state or require that Jesus is divine.
The kingdom of God
It is helpful in this context to understand the idea of apocalyptic Judaism. The brief idea is that the forces of evil currently control the earth but God will initiate a tremendous battle against those forces and establish a new kingdom for His chosen people, one that is good and just, and led by a descendent of David. It is important to note that this kingdom is on earth, but it would be a time of peace, with Israel and God given their rightful recognition by the world. The Messiah would be the one used by God to establish and lead this kingdom.
We are given the parable of the wicked vine-growers representing this overthrow of existing leadership (Mark 12:1–12).
Imminent
When you see repeated references to the kingdom of God being “at hand”, they mean that the revolution is not far off:
“Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”” (Mark 1:14–15, NASB95)
The word “gospel” just means “good news”, and this is what that good news is, the imminent battle for the kingdom. In all of the accounts, the disciples do not understand what happens to Jesus until after the fact, so the good news has nothing to do with that. The gospel is being preached before Jesus’ death. Jesus is telling the Jews that the time they have been waiting for has arrived:
“And Jesus was saying to them, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”” (Mark 9:1, NASB95)
All of chapter 13 is describing this apocalyptic battle. While I understand how this is interpreted today, Jesus was telling them of the battle that would be coming soon. He was warning his followers of what they would be facing:
““When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death.” (Mark 13:11–12, NASB95)
Seed
In a couple different ways Jesus uses the metaphor of a seed. We have the well known parable of the sower (Mark 4:1–9). There is nothing in that parable that is particularly suited or not suited for the idea of an approaching earthly kingdom.
We are also given two seed parables one after the other:
“And He was saying, “The kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the soil; and he goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts and grows—how, he himself does not know. “The soil produces crops by itself; first the blade, then the head, then the mature grain in the head. “But when the crop permits, he immediately puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”” (Mark 4:26–29, NASB95)
“And He said, “How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? “It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil, yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches; so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR can NEST UNDER ITS SHADE.”” (Mark 4:30–32, NASB95)
Seeds are small, and we are specifically told that the mustard seed is smaller than other seeds. They are also hidden once planted; we don’t know just when they will sprout. Now consider Jesus in a group of people that are secretly planning to overthrow the existing kingdom. Starting small and hidden, one day they appear suddenly, like the seed sprouting overnight. The kingdom grows to be the greatest in the world, dominating all others.
We are also given Mark 13:34–36, a parable of a master on a journey whose time of return is unknown. This too illustrates the idea of being ready for something whose timing is not known.
Eternal life
As with almost all religious topics, there is always a variety of opinions, but broadly, the Jewish thought was that there still would be an eternal existence after this life in some form, after the kingdom on earth served its purpose. Thus we have the separate ideas of what life would be like in the kingdom in the present age, versus the eternal age to come:
“Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. “But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”” (Mark 10:29–31, NASB95)
But how does one obtain this life? By following Jewish law.
“As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. “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.’ ” And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!”” (Mark 10:17–23, NASB95)
The giving up of wealth was not tied to eternal life but to eternal rewards. It also was important relative to the kingdom, because one aspect of it apparently was the redistribution of wealth away from those unjustly in power. Thus the first being last. Those who serve the kingdom would receive “a hundred times” what they give up, but they need to be willing to give it all first to help the kingdom come about.
John the Baptist
To be honest, I’ve never had a great understanding of the role of John the Baptist. If the point of all this was belief in Jesus, what was the point of John’s baptism of repentance? John’s baptism was not tied to Jesus and did not remove the need for Jesus. All I could figure was a vague idea that this demonstrated the willingness of people to recognize their sin and therefore their need for Jesus.
Viewing this account in isolation, it makes sense though. There is no belief in Jesus for salvation. What matters is following the Law. It entirely makes sense that the people would need to repent of their sins so that they would be ready when the Messiah established the new kingdom. They wanted to be on the right side when it all went down.
Moral teaching
A number of the themes raised below directly conflict with the idea of unconditional grace based on belief, and people have to find creative ways to resolve the tensions between them. It usually involves greatly watering down one side or the other. However, since this account does not describe unconditional grace, it is internally consistent.
Following the Law
Given the importance of following the Law in obtaining eternal life, as described above, as opposed to belief in Jesus, it makes sense that Jesus would provide these teaching points:
Cut off your hand, foot, or eye if it makes you stumble (Mark 9:43–48)
Divorce is bad (Mark 10:2–12)
Forgiveness
We have the idea that God’s forgiveness may hinge on or be affected by our own willingness to forgive others.
““Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions.” (Mark 11:25, NASB95)
Serving
The theme of switching places, of exchanging circumstances, shows in different forms. Discussing which of the twelve is greatest, Jesus tells them:
“Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”” (Mark 9:35, NASB95)
Ritual
Jesus emphasizes moral behavior over following rituals. Jesus makes a point of gathering food and healing on the Sabbath and explaining why it is OK. He also speaks at length about defilement of food not being something to worry about, rather to worry about what thoughts come out of us (Mark 7:1–23). In general he has a dim view of the Pharisees and their religious observances.
The life of a disciple
Light
We will see how this metaphor evolved as time went on as we look at the different accounts. In this earliest one, we are simply told that a lamp should not be hidden.
“And He was saying to them, “A lamp is not brought to be put under a basket, is it, or under a bed? Is it not brought to be put on the lampstand?” (Mark 4:21, NASB95)
Pick up your cross
Again we have the theme that following Jesus will come at a cost. In the context of imminent conflict, it makes sense that Jesus would tell his followers to not worry about holding on to their lives.
“And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? “For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”” (Mark 8:34–38, NASB95)
Faith
This isn’t a major theme, but we do have this one passage where we are told extraordinary faith leads to extraordinary outcomes.
“And Jesus answered saying to them, “Have faith in God. “Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. “Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.” (Mark 11:22–24, NASB95)
Crucifixion and resurrection
Suffering Messiah
In a number of places, Jesus teaches his followers that it is necessary for him to suffer and die. Despite the repetition, His followers do not understand until after it happens.
He must suffer many things, be killed, and rise after three days. (Mark 8:31–33)
He must be delivered into the hands of men, be killed, and rise after three days. (Mark 9:30–32)
He will be condemned, mocked, killed, and rise after three days. (Mark 10:32–34)
He came to give his life a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45)
And of course, the well known Last Supper:
“While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Mark 14:22–24, NASB95)
Note in this version, there is no mention of forgiveness nor of remembering Jesus. In this passage and the ones above, Jesus never says why he must suffer, just that it must happen and he will rise again. No connection is made with belief in Jesus for forgiveness. We are actually told that Jesus can forgive sins, so he shouldn’t need to die for that.
““Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.”” (Mark 2:9–11, NASB95)
There is a plausible reason suffering is depicted as essential in this account. It was well known what the Messiah was supposed to do for Israel, establish a new kingdom, and Jesus plainly spoke of this in this account. The problem is that the Messiah was crucified as a criminal, and there was no new kingdom, and no real change in the current kingdom. Therefore, the account that was composed afterwards (remember, this is decades after the events) needed to incorporate the idea that the suffering and death was part of the plan, even if it doesn’t really explain why.
Messianic secret
Continuing that idea, it has been noted that, of the four Gospels, Mark stands apart in having Jesus keep the fact that he is the Messiah secret. When his disciples state who he is, when he performs healings, when he transfigures himself for his inner circle of disciples, there is a running theme of him telling them to tell no one. Because the purported Messiah didn’t bring about any real change, this could well be an attempt to explain why this hugely consequential event was not more well known and recognized. Just like the suffering, the need for secrecy is stated but not explained.
We also have the idea that Jesus’ teaching, while done openly, was still meant to be secret:
“As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN.”” (Mark 4:10–12, NASB95)
One typical explanation for why Jesus would deliberately obscure his message is that the Jewish leadership had incurred a stricter judgment because they mishandled their authority and responsibility, and therefore these truths were kept from them. Perhaps, but it does fit with the running theme of secrecy.
Judas
Judas is a constant in the accounts, but here there is no mention of Satan entering him or of a specific amount of money paid for his betrayal.
Garden and arrest
We are told the essential stories of Jesus praying in the garden and of his arrest. Later accounts will add other details. In this one, when the servant’s ear is cut off, there is no healing or comment about it. This is also the only account that mentions a young man running away naked because he was only wearing a sheet that got pulled off in his escape.
Trial
Jesus says very little in these proceedings. When he is before the council, he makes only one statement, to the high priest:
“And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”” (Mark 14:62, NASB95)
Note that Jesus in this account is telling the high priest that he will see the Son of Man coming back. This means that Jesus would have to return in the high priest’s lifetime.
Jesus also makes only one statement to Pilate:
“Pilate questioned Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?” And He answered him, “It is as you say.”” (Mark 15:2, NASB95)
No real reason is given for Roman involvement in this. We see Jesus before the Sanhedrin, where they deem him deserving of death. They then bring him before Pilate, but no explanation is given why Pilate would be getting involved at all, much less crucifying Jesus. But when we consider what Jesus has been saying in this account about looking to bring about the new kingdom, and soon, it is easy to see that the Roman authorities would have a big problem with that.
The crucifixion
On the cross, he only makes one utterance:
“At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”” (Mark 15:34, NASB95)
Unlike the accounts to come, Jesus engages very little with the people around him during the trial and the crucifixion.
The empty tomb
Earlier I described that there are many different manuscripts, all with slight variations. Some variations are significant enough that even the currently accepted translations include them, but depending on the translation, some make it more obvious than others. But I have not seen where they say anything more than something like “later manuscripts add these verses”. There is no real sense of how much later. (Older translations, like the King James, include them with no distinction.)
In this case, we have a very significant addition that only appeared decades later, that I will discuss later in this article. The wild truth here is that, originally, this story stops at verse 8. (Some translations note this, some don’t.)
“Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. “But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’ ” They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” (Mark 16:5–8, NASB95)
Note that the women were so freaked out that they told no one. Recall the idea of the Messianic secret that I raised earlier. The closer this account was written to the crucifixion, the harder it would be to explain why all of this (a resurrected Messiah) was not common knowledge (if it were, it would have transformed their society). This fits that same theme. Even though this was a vastly significant event, the reason it wasn’t well known was that the women simply told no one. Also, it is convenient that Jesus would be showing up in Galilee, not in Jerusalem where this all went down.
It makes sense that someone would later add to this, because it is quite an underwhelming end for this saga. There is no appearance of Jesus, either to the women or the disciples, and no ascension and promise of a return. All we get is the statement from the young man (not explicitly identified as an angel) that Jesus is going ahead to Galilee.
Summary of Mark
I will attempt to summarize the narrative. Jesus believed in a struggle between the forces of good and evil, and that the time had come for good to prevail. A new kingdom of Israel would be established on earth, and it would be Jesus as the Messiah who would be used by God to do so. He respected the Law and believed it was the key to being accepted into this new kingdom, but he didn’t have a high opinion of the Pharisees, who were more concerned about ritual and appearances than the moral imperatives of the Law. However, it was important that he die and be resurrected before bringing this about, but his return would be soon, in the lifetime of some of his followers.
This is pretty far removed from what modern Christianity associates with Jesus. There are no beatitudes, no statements about “I am the way”, nor many other things. As we will see, this doesn't come until later.
As an aside, let me state that, though I did arrive at some of these conclusions on my own, sprinkled throughout this article are ideas seeded by things Bart Ehrman has said in his books, on his blog, and in videos. I would have linked certain points to his site, but it is behind a paywall (the money goes to charity), so you’ll just have to trust me. Or sign up and see for yourself.
Matthew
This account comes along a decade or two after Mark. Besides adding a good amount of material, it heavily promotes the idea that this whole thing is by Jews, for Jews.
The nature of Jesus
Genealogy
We are provided with the origin of Jesus in this account. We are given a genealogy tracing back to Abraham (the chief Jewish patriarch), which also serves to demonstrate Jesus’ lineage to David.
Virgin birth
This account introduces the virgin birth, though it describes no actual divine communication with Mary. An angel appears to Joseph and explains everything to him. (As I noted in Mark, that account does not mention Joseph once. What if Mary was divorced or widowed early? Not having a father around could turn into a basis for a story of a virgin birth.) Matthew makes a point of connecting Jesus to various OT prophecies, and the virgin birth is the first of them (and happens to be controversial).
Childhood travels
Joseph appears in the first two chapters and is not mentioned again. It appears to me that Joseph was added in to help with a couple of points. One is the desire for a genealogy, because, as the text underscores, the line of the fathers is all that matters. The other is that Matthew needs the family to do some significant traveling to fulfill more prophecy, and it seems unlikely that a single mother would be doing so. At a later point I will look at the prophecies themselves, but the main problem Matthew appears to be solving is that Jesus is known to be from Nazareth but he wanted him born in Bethlehem because that is the town where David was from. The impending massacre of children (of which there is no historical record) becomes their reason to leave their hometown and allows for another prophetic connection to be made, as does going by way of Egypt. Matthew also adds another prophecy about “he shall be called a Nazarene” but people have not really found which OT scripture that is supposed to be.
A type of Moses
There is another reason for the specific events that the author records in Jesus’ childhood; namely, to make him a type of Moses. Consider these parallels:
The author is not concerned with historical accuracy so much as drawing parallels between Jesus and the greatest leader in Jewish history, Moses, who led them from captivity to a new kingdom.
Isaiah
In Jewish theology, the book of Isaiah is one of the more significant sources of ideas about the Messiah. It should be no surprise then, given the Jewish focus of this account, that many of the claims of fulfillment of OT scriptures refer to Isaiah.
Son of God
The relationship between the Son and Father isn’t much changed in Matthew, though this one verse perhaps indicates more closeness than in Mark:
““All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” (Matthew 11:27, NASB95)
The kingdom of God
Matthew starts with the same broad idea of the coming kingdom on earth as Mark does and builds on it.
Illustrating the idea that the Pharisees are one of the problems that will be dealt with by the imminent revolution (the arrival of the new kingdom) is this passage spoken by John the Baptist:
“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? “Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. “The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 3:7–10, NASB95)
Later Jesus says:
“Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. “I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”” (Matthew 8:10–12, NASB95)
We are given a much stronger statement here than in Mark about the importance of the Law in relation to the kingdom, including that every single statement counts. Where in Mark the rich man was told just that “you know the commandments”, Jesus tells the people they need to do better than the Pharisees.
““Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17–20, NASB95)
Exclusivity
Matthew introduces the idea that this new kingdom is not open to everyone, and indeed the majority won’t make the cut. Jesus explicitly states this:
““Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:13–14, NASB95)
Jesus again emphasizes the importance of following the Law while underlining this exclusivity:
““Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’” (Matthew 7:21–23, NASB95)
In Chapter 21 Jesus gives the parable of the wedding feast, which closes with the statement “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
(This notion of exclusivity is one of the big tensions between the accounts. It is very hard to square this with the wide open theology espoused in John. People do it, but it takes some real mental yoga.)
Separation
Hand in hand with the idea of exclusivity is that of separation. An important part of the apocalyptic view is that there will be an accounting for everyone (even the dead). Thus Jesus tells us in Matthew 25:31–46 that when the new kingdom is established, the Son of Man will judge all the nations, separating the “sheep from the goats” based on their actions, respectively sending them to eternal punishment or life.
When John the Baptist is chewing out the Pharisees, he tells them this of the Messiah:
“As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”” (Matthew 3:11–12, NASB95)
Not only are actions considered, but words as well:
““But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”” (Matthew 12:36–37, NASB95)
Consider this passage, generally held to be speaking about the Rapture:
““For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. “Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. “Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left.” (Matthew 24:37–41, NASB95)
The idea of a separation is clearly here too. But what is interesting is the comparison being made. When the floods came and took people away, it was all the condemned people being taken away for punishment. It says here of pairs of people that one will be taken also. From the perspective of a new kingdom on earth, I think this is saying that the ones that are left are the ones that made the cut.
We also are given parables about separation:
Tares and the wheat (Matthew 13:24–30)
Dragnet gathering good and bad fish (Matthew 13:47–50)
Jewish only
The coming kingdom is to be a new kingdom of Israel, so it makes sense they would be the primary beneficiaries. In Mark there is a story of a Canaanite woman seeking help for her daughter, but Jesus says:
“And He was saying to her, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”” (Mark 7:27, NASB95)
She persists and is granted her request. The similar story is in Matthew, but the author raises the bar here:
“But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”” (Matthew 15:24, NASB95)
The outcome of the story is the same, but Matthew has gone from “Israel first” to “Israel only”.
This is stated more plainly elsewhere, though I never understood it until I looked at this account in isolation:
““Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:6, NASB95)
This verse is typically interpreted to mean certain people are so hard-hearted that sharing with them is pointless and likely to backfire, so don’t bother. I never understand why you would ever want to withhold the good news or spiritual truths from anyone, though. But looking at the Jewish connotations for dogs and pigs, it makes sense that what Jesus is saying is don’t share what is holy with those that are not Jewish.
The synoptic gospels all have a section where Jesus commissions the twelve, but only Matthew has this:
“These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5–6, NASB95)
Twelve thrones
Mark didn’t state why Jesus chose specifically twelve disciples, but here (and in Luke) we are told why. There are twelve tribes of Israel that will each need a leader when the new kingdom of Israel arrives:
“And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28, NASB95)
There are interesting theological ramifications when you consider that Judas was part of the twelve that were picked and that this statement was addressed to.
High price
We’ve already seen where the rich man was told to sell everything and follow Jesus. We also have parables in this theme:
Treasure hidden in field (Matthew 13:44)
Pearl of great value (Matthew 13:45–46)
Store up treasures in heaven, not on earth (Matthew 6:19–21)
You cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:24)
Be alert, use the time well
Mark also expressed the idea that the kingdom could arrive at any time, so be alert, but Matthew takes it further. Matthew also elaborates on the theme of using the time well.
The parable of the ten virgins illustrates the consequences of not being prepared (Matthew 25:1–13)
Mark also has a parable about a master going on a journey, but Matthew adds a new detail at the end, when the master returns (emphasis mine):
““But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time,’ and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 24:48–51, NASB95)
The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30). Note that it ends with “the worthless slave” being thrown in the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Moral teaching
Matthew includes the same general points as Mark, but elaborates on them in some cases and adds more points. Overall he raises the bar quite a bit. This very much fits with the notion of entrance to the kingdom being a narrow gate.
Blessed are…
The Sermon on the Mount has nine blessings. “Blessed are the poor in spirit…” and so on. A couple of them mention the kingdom of heaven, but one has this:
““Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:5, NASB95)
I’ve never been quite clear on what that means, given the evangelical view that Jesus is coming to rapture his people away. It makes a lot more sense in light of an imminent earthly kingdom.
Following the Law
In addition to divorce, Jesus speaks of:
Looking at a woman with lust is committing adultery in your heart (Matthew 5:27–28).
Don’t make oaths, answer just “yes” or “no” (Matthew 5:33–37)
Give in secret (Matthew 6:1–4)
Pray in secret (Matthew 6:5–6)
Fast in secret (Matthew 6:16–18)
Reprove a brother, and if he doesn’t listen, “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:15–18)
Jesus clearly did not like the ostentatious displays of the Pharisees. Essentially all of chapter 23 is a rant against them.
Forgiveness, forbearance, and love
In addition to the importance of forgiveness, Matthew adds new ideas:
Calling someone a fool is sufficient for condemnation to “the fiery hell” (Matthew 5:21–26)
Do not resist evil: turn the other cheek and go the extra mile (Matthew 5:38–42)
Love your enemies (Matthew 5:43–48)
Seeing specks in other people eyes but not the log in yours (Matthew 7:3–5)
The golden rule (Matthew 7:12)
We also get the parable of the unforgiving servant, underscoring that if you do not forgive, God will not forgive you. (Matthew 18:23–35)
The life of a disciple
Persecution
Many in modern Christianity hold that the world in general is opposed to the Christian kingdom, either to the world being in a fallen state, or because of the malign influence of Satan. Therefore Christians will encounter persecution in various forms, big and small. There are of course people in many countries that really do face death for their beliefs, but in Western civilization, this is generally not the case. So when we encounter passages like the following that speak of being killed, it is taken as sort of a worst case scenario:
““Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. “What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. “So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows. “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 10:26–33, NASB95)
Now consider this in the context of this account. Why is Jesus telling them in the darkness? Why is he whispering? This is an underground movement of people seeking to overthrow the government (with the blessing and aid of God). Revolutionaries, to be succinct. When the time comes, he is looking for the public backing of his followers. This is a pep talk to not fear the consequences.
Conflict
If you think I’m missing the mark, consider how it continues:
““Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. “For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. “He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34–39, NASB95)
Because it is a severe statement, generally this is explained as Jesus using extreme language for the sake of effect. But again, in context, this fits quite well. I think he meant exactly what he said. A few verses earlier we have:
““Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.” (Matthew 10:21, NASB95)
And in another clear statement that the arrival of the new kingdom and the Son of Man would happen soon (emphasis mine):
““You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. “But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.” (Matthew 10:22–23, NASB95)
Do not be anxious
Matthew 6:25–34 says to not be worried about food and raiment:
““But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” (Matthew 6:33, NASB95)
In the context of this account, the meaning of this verse is that people need to be focused on helping bring about the new kingdom, and then everything they need will be provided.
Light
Where Mark just notes that a lamp should not be placed under a basket, Matthew now states that the followers are the light of the world:
““You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.” (Matthew 5:14–15, NASB95)
Crucifixion and resurrection
Sign of Jonah
In Mark, when asked for a sign, Jesus just sighed and said no sign would be given. But in Matthew, Jesus says they will get no sign...except the sign of Jonah.
“But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:39–40, NASB95)
This reinforces the idea that the crucifixion and resurrection was part of the plan all along.
Suffering Messiah
At the Last Supper with the bread and the cup, where Mark just says that Jesus’ blood is poured out for many, Matthew makes an important addition (emphasize mine):
“And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:27–28, NASB95)
Instead of just stating it was necessary, Matthew adds in a reason (which the other synoptic gospels lack). Nonetheless, it is a vague idea here that Jesus’ death will result in the sins of others being forgiven, an idea that will be developed later in John.
Judas
This is the only account that specifies an amount, thirty pieces of silver. Matthew most likely was trying to make another connection to the OT, because later in this account the money is used to buy the potter’s field. There is a passage in Zechariah (Zechariah 11:10–16) with thirty pieces and a potter’s field. It is a strange one given the subject matter, but not something I will digress into here.
Garden and arrest
This scene is largely the same, but unique to Matthew is this claim:
““Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53, NASB95)
This is intended to show that Jesus was in control in the situation and that everything was going according to plan.
Trial and crucifixion
These events play out essentially the same way as they do in Mark. There is one notable exception, however. Where upon Jesus’ death in Mark the veil tears in two, we have more in Matthew:
“And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.” (Matthew 27:50–53, NASB95)
The shaking of the earth and splitting of rocks is certainly more dramatic. But the big addition is the walking dead. The claim is that many people saw this. This is the kind of thing that would leave a mark in the historical record, since there were so many witnesses to such a singularly astounding and unprecedented event, yet there is none.
The empty tomb
Matthew is the only account that mentions guards in any way. The Pharisees remember Jesus’ claims about rising after three days and post a guard. When Mary comes to the tomb, there are guards that faint when an angel appears. Afterwards, the guards are paid off by the chief priests to say that the disciples stole the body.
It is suspicious that this narrative thread appears in multiple places in this account, yet the others make not one reference to guards, especially when Mary visits the tomb. What is also suspicious is that apparently the priests and Pharisees understood Jesus’ prediction of resurrection better that his disciples:
“Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, and said, “Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ “Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.”” (Matthew 27:62–64, NASB95)
This claim that was so well known that the priests knew about it and felt they had to act to head it off apparently meant so little to the disciples that none of them went to the tomb, only the two Marys. And as we’ll see shortly, some of his disciples still did not believe it, even seeing it firsthand.
One explanation is that the author added this to provide additional witnesses to the empty tomb, witnesses that were not Jesus’ followers, and that the priests did not actually understand or care about the claim of resurrection.
Jesus appears
The ending of this account has a few strange things:
“But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”” (Matthew 28:16–20, NASB95)
First strange thing: why were some disciples doubtful? They had traveled with Jesus several years and had seen miraculous things, not to mention that Jesus was standing right there in front of them. And Jesus makes no effort to assuage their doubts. Was this some body double that was being passed off as Jesus? The whole thing just seems strange.
Second strange thing: Jesus tells them to “make disciples of all the nations”, but we saw earlier that Jesus point blank tells them in several different ways that this message is only for Israel.
Last but biggest strange thing: Jesus doesn’t go anywhere. There is no ascension and promise of a return. Perhaps Jesus finishes out his natural life in Galilee, directing his disciples from afar. Or perhaps he relocates to avoid a second punishment. But clearly he does not resume his mission, because that would have been news that made headlines, and we can also see that a new kingdom did not come into being. Nonetheless, this is an advancement over the narrative in Mark, where no one actually sees Jesus and the only witnesses to the empty tomb tell no one. Here the disciples actually see Jesus, even if they don’t all quite believe it.
Summary of Matthew
This is an evolution of the account in Mark, still built around the central theme that Jesus is the Messiah who is going to soon help usher in a new kingdom of Israel. This kingdom is only for the Jews, and accordingly following the Law is given more focus, with more time spent on moral teaching. More explanation is given to the special nature of Jesus and to connecting him to Messianic prophecies and Jewish themes.
Luke
Luke covers a lot of the same ground as Matthew, to the point where scholars think Luke and Matthew either had a common source besides Mark, or that Luke copied from Matthew. But where Matthew is very Jewish-focused, Luke’s version is more universal. More than that, Luke is much more concerned about repentance for the sake of a right relationship with God than for avoiding punishment.
Some scholars place the date of this at about the same time as Matthew, some 10 or so years later. Just based on the text, it makes sense to be later, given the way some of the stories change or are expanded upon.
The nature of Jesus
Genealogy
This account also has the lineage of Jesus via Joseph, but goes all the way back to Adam. This is likely for the sake of emphasizing Jesus’ connection to humankind in general rather than to Israel.
Virgin birth
Luke also has this idea, but much more elaborate. Here, an angel appears to Mary instead of Joseph to explain everything, and she later gives a multiple-verse praise to God. But here the birth of John the Baptist is also miraculous, with his mother Elizabeth being older and barren, and also related to Mary. While still in Elizabeth’s womb, John the Baptist recognizes Mary as the mother of the Lord. His father Zacharias also is part of this, reciting a sizable prophecy at John’s birth.
Census
Luke has Joseph and Mary as residents of Nazareth right from the start, but, like Matthew, needs Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, so he uses a census as the reason. It also serves as a chance to highlight that Joseph is of the house of David.
However, this census is historically pretty unlikely, especially as described. The genealogy that is recorded has David over 40 generations back from Joseph. At a conservative 30 years per generation, that is 1200 years back! How many people could trace back their lineage that far, and what kind of mass migration would be entailed for everyone to do this? Above all, why? What benefit is there to organizing people by such ancient family ties? None that I can see. This census is for narrative purposes, not historical.
Shepherds
Where Matthew had the baby Jesus visited by wise men, Luke has shepherds. Maybe this is to emphasize that Jesus’ message is for the common man in this account.
Prophecy fulfillment
In Matthew, the narrator of the account made numerous connections back to OT scriptures. Here, it is always Jesus making a statement about something being fulfilled. Presumably, this is to make clear that Jesus himself was fully aware of these connections.
However, only a couple instances actually mention specific OT scriptures. More often, they are general statements, like this:
“Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished.” (Luke 18:31, NASB95)
No specific claims are being made about what is being fulfilled. These types of statements serve to demonstrate that everything that happens is part of the plan, without committing to any specific viewpoint, e.g. being the Jewish Messiah. As we’ll see, Luke tends to show Jesus as more aware of and in control of (i.e. allowing to happen) the events that happen to him than the prior two accounts.
The kingdom of God
This follows the same broad theme of the imminent kingdom on earth as the two prior accounts have. However, it builds on that theme in some significantly different ways than Matthew does.
Mercy vs judgment
One focus of Matthew is on repentance because of the dire consequences if one does not. Luke retains a little of that, but more often his view of repentance is focused on the benefits of God’s favor.
One of the few direct OT references Jesus makes is here, and this is only in Luke:
“And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, “THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.” And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”” (Luke 4:16–21, NASB95)
This is Jesus as a bringer of hope, not a judge. The “favorable year” is likely a reference to the Jubilee year when debts were forgiven. (I should note that the NAS translators here apparently have taken a little liberty with the words “the gospel”. Other translations just say “good news”. Even in the NAS, when you look at the Isaiah quote that is referenced (Is 61:1-2), it says “bring good news”.)
Both Matthew and Luke speak of a narrow gate, but Luke softens the message:
““Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. “Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ “Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’; and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.’ “In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out. “And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God. “And behold, some are last who will be first and some are first who will be last.”” (Luke 13:24–30, NASB95)
Luke says many will not be able to enter, but this is not the same as saying only a few can make it. There is no mention here of the broad way that leads to destruction. Matthew mentions “weeping and gnashing of teeth” several times, and it occurs when people are thrown in the “outer darkness” or “the furnace of fire”. This is the only place it occurs in Luke, and here is because people see what they will be missing, not because they are in a place of punishment.
In fact, nearly all of the parables are gone about some being separated to a place of punishment. No sheeps and goats, no tares, no unforgiving servant thrown to the torturers. There is still the parable of the master that comes back from a journey, but Luke modifies it:
Luke still has the bad slave being cut and placed elsewhere, but there is no weeping or gnashing. And then a qualifier is added for those who didn’t actually know the will of the master, saying their floggings will be few.
The times of the Gentiles
In all of the accounts so far, there has been talk of a new earthly kingdom coming very soon. This wasn’t some idea that Jesus was pulling out of thin air. A segment of the Jewish people in that time shared that hope, and in 66 AD, the Jewish people did in fact stage the Great Jewish Revolt against Rome. This resulted in a severe response from the Romans, including the destruction of the temple.
The synoptic gospels also all have an apocalyptic section describing the arrival of the kingdom, with the simplest version in Mark, and then expanded in Matthew. Luke was almost certainly written after this revolt, which wasn’t successful, so it changes what Jesus purportedly predicted to include this loss, to make it seem like he knew this would happen. I’ve emphasized some additions:
““But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. “Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. “Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:20–24, NASB95)
After Rome crushed the rebellion and destroyed the temple, this was an attempt to give the people hope that all was not lost, the followers of Jesus in particular. There still was a divine plan for the new kingdom, and in fact Jesus predicted this turn of events all along.
It seems to me that this is why Luke doesn’t focus on divine punishment or sin. The insinuation in some of this is that this is God’s wrath. They already had been punished, and now need to focus on loving and turning back to God. If they did, everything would still work out.
This is why Luke (and only Luke) gives us the parable of the prodigal son, a parable of turning back and being accepted and forgiven.
The Law
Luke still upholds the Law, but when the question comes up of eternal life, we get a couple different perspectives. Luke keeps the story of the rich young man, but also has a questioning lawyer:
“And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.”” (Luke 10:25–28, NASB95)
Presumably loving God implies obedience, but this passage certainly has a different focus than making sure one carries out the Law. Luke removes the passages about plucking out your eye and cutting off your hand, and also the passage about needing righteousness that surpasses that of the Pharisees. Per above, this is a much more suitable message for a beaten down people.
Price not high?
Gone are the verses about enduring until the end, as well as the parables of selling everything to buy the field with a great treasure in it or a pearl of great price.
Inclusive
Where Matthew made a point of the kingdom only being for Jews, Luke goes the other direction and specifically includes foreigners, and sometimes implies that foreigners were doing a better job spiritually.
Unique to Luke is the story of the ten lepers that were healed, and only one turns back to thank Jesus:
“Then Jesus answered and said, “Were there not ten cleansed? But the nine—where are they? “Was no one found who returned to give glory to God, except this foreigner?”” (Luke 17:17–18, NASB95)
Uniquely there is also the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37).
Luke does not have the story of the Canaanite woman seeking healing to whom Jesus says he only came to Israel. Among other things, Luke also does not have the statements about pearls before swine or that the disciples should only go to the lost sheep of Israel.
Moral teaching
Forgiveness
Where Matthew has the idea of confronting a brother in sin to the point of ostracizing them from the church if necessary, Luke has just this:
““Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.” (Luke 17:3, NASB95)
Persistence
Luke also has unique teachings about perseverance. Given that they had been trying to bring about the new kingdom and had not succeeded, it is plausible that Luke was encouraging them to not give up, either in their efforts or their beseeching of God’s favor. The teachings include:
A friend persistently banging on the door asking for bread (Luke 11:5–8)
The widow and the unrighteous judge (Luke 18:1–8)
There is also the idea of not expecting some immediate reward just for being faithful (Luke 17:7–10)
Unique punishment?
Given the context, it makes sense that this passage is unique to Luke:
“Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. And Jesus said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate? “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. “Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. “And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ “And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’ ”” (Luke 13:1–9, NASB95)
It is important to understand what the opening report to Jesus is. While offering their sacrifices to God, there were Galileans cut down by the Romans. Jesus’ statement is that these people were not particularly wicked or extra-deserving of punishment. The fig tree often represents Israel, so the point is that if Israel on the whole did not start producing spiritual fruit, it would deserve to be cut down.
But note that Jesus had been gone for over thirty years when the destruction by Rome happened, and it was longer still until this account was written. Similar to the changes to the apocalyptic section, this was an attempt to retroactively explain the devastation of the Jewish people. I don’t think it was likely during Jesus’ time that Romans slaughtered Galileans. This is an anachronistic reference to the Roman response to the revolt. The point of this section is not historical accuracy but theological explanation.
Money
For some reason, Luke has various parables and teachings about money, more than any other account. I can only speculate that maybe after the revolt and Roman response that money was an issue.
The parable of Lazarus
This well known parable is only found here. It has themes of wealth and justice, where the rich did not help the poor and therefore suffer in the next life while the poor are at peace with Abraham. The big point is that even if someone dies and rises from the dead to warn the living, they won’t listen.
Bear in mind this was written decades after Jesus’ death and purported resurrection, so this is a way of pointing out that even such a dramatic sign as that was not enough to convince people to repent.
Crucifixion and resurrection
Transgressors
There is a reference to a short OT passage, “And he was numbered with transgressors” (Is 53:12), that Matthew interprets as being fulfilled by being crucified with robbers. But Luke gives a different fulfillment:
“And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. “For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”” (Luke 22:35–38, NASB95)
Jesus is talking to his disciples here. He is telling them that they should have swords on them so that they will be the transgressors he is numbered with.
Last supper
The scene is much the same as in the other prior accounts, but here there is no mention of forgiveness of sins. (It is also worth noting that this account omits the verse about Jesus coming to be a ransom for many.) Rather, this rendition is the only one to include the phrase “do this in remembrance of me”. Jesus is more of a martyr whose death will convict people of their need to repent than a sacrifice on their behalf.
Judas
This account introduces the idea that Satan entered into Judas.
Composed
In the previous two accounts, Jesus said very little all the way through the trial and crucifixion. Luke, however, depicts Jesus as more composed and forgiving throughout all of it. We read several new statements here.
While Jesus is being led to the crucifixion, he speaks to the women following:
“But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. “For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ “Then they will begin TO SAY TO THE MOUNTAINS, ‘FALL ON US,’ AND TO THE HILLS, ‘COVER US.’ “For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”” (Luke 23:28–31, NASB95)
Jesus is not worried about himself but about Israel. If they can do such a thing while everything is relatively fine, what will happen when things get bad?
We also see Jesus’ forgiveness and mercy:
“But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.” (Luke 23:34, NASB95)
Even on the cross, he is receiving anyone who will turn. He accepts one of the robbers crucified with him:
““And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”” (Luke 23:41–43, NASB95)
Importantly, he does not say anything about the Father forsaking him. Instead we are given the rather more composed statement:
“And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT.” Having said this, He breathed His last.” (Luke 23:46, NASB95)
The road to Emmaus
Also unique to Luke is this episode. It again serves to illustrate that Jesus was in control of the situation and that this was all according to plan.
“And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:25–27, NASB95)
However, like other vague statements of fulfillment in this account, no details are actually given. The statement is made that this was all necessary, but none of Jesus’ actual explanation is written.
Jesus appears
In Matthew, Jesus just meets the disciples at Galilee, end of story. The scene is much more dramatic in Luke. Instead of Galilee, Jesus suddenly appears in the midst of the disciples in Jerusalem. He shows them his hand and feet, presumably to show the punctures. He again states that all of this was written in the Scriptures and had to be fulfilled. And then they escort him to the edge of town where he ascends into heaven. This ending is more compelling and developed than the one in Matthew, and certainly more than Mark.
There is virtually no disagreement that the author of Luke also wrote Acts. So it is strange that is opens with a different version of the events in Luke’s closing:
“To these [the apostles] He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”” (Acts 1:3–11, NASB95)
For one, instead of Jesus ascending the night he appears to the apostles, he lingers for forty days. It says he gave them many “convincing proofs” of being alive, but it is hard to imagine what that means. If they could see and touch him, what more proof could he give? It strikes me as a statement for the benefit of doubters; not only was Jesus alive, there were many different proofs of it (notwithstanding that no specifics are given).
There is also the elephant in the room that the author needs to address. Jesus is supposed to be the Messiah that brings about the new kingdom, and all of these things that needed to happen according to Scripture have now happened, and Jesus is back from the dead, so why has the kingdom not arrived, even decades later? The apostles are depicted asking that question so Jesus can respond that the answer is above their pay grade, in effect. All they need to know is it hasn’t happened and it will happen when it should, according to the divine plan.
That plan has a new dimension now, though. Admittedly, both Matthew and Luke have a statement in their final episodes about bringing a message to all the nations (notwithstanding that Matthew has various statements about being for Israel only). But they are hard to reconcile with everything that came before in their respective accounts regarding a kingdom that was arriving very soon, that some of the disciples would see happen in their lifetime. In any case, this is the first we are seeing with any detail what that really means. What was supposed to be the end is just the beginning. For reasons that are not explained, the new kingdom of Israel will not be arriving until the disciples tell the world about Jesus, even the most remote places. (There would be no reason to tell them to go do that if Jesus were planning on coming back before that happened.) The kingdom that was at hand is not at hand any more.
Summary of Luke
This shares many stories with Matthew, but the focus is quite different. This is a message for a people that had tried to revolt and bring about their new kingdom and failed. The themes of punishment have been replaced with mercy and a return to God. Luke continues to develop the themes of why Jesus was the Messiah yet the kingdom did not arrive, that all was according to plan. Luke opens up the kingdom to non-Jews as well.
John
Finally we have John, the latest account to be written, about 60-70 years after Jesus’ death. It looks the most like modern Christianity does.
The nature of Jesus
The Word
There are no miraculous births or prestigious genealogies here. John has taken Jesus’ origin even further, describing him as the Word that created everything, that was with God and was God.
I Am
Jesus is depicted as conspicuously using God’s self-identification from the OT, I Am, as here:
“Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”” (John 8:58, NASB95)
Sent, one
There are several more verses than in the synoptics where Jesus is saying he is sent by the Father, and only John has verses where Jesus is identifying himself with God, like these:
“And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me. “He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.” (John 12:44–45, NASB95)
““My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. “I and the Father are one.”” (John 10:29–30, NASB95)
This is all a significant expansion of Jesus’ identity over the earlier accounts. Jesus was chosen, he was the Messiah, but here we are told he is God, in multiple ways.
The Way
Jesus is no longer just telling people what they must do to be saved, he is now the means of being saved. All these types of descriptors appear only in John:
The good shepherd and the door of the sheep (John 10:7–11)
The true vine (John 15:1–8)
The Lamb of God (John 1:29–34)
Gives eternal water (John 4:13–14)
The bread of life (John 6:48–51)
“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life” (John 6:53–56)
The way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6)
The kingdom
A heavenly place
Given that it has been 60-70 years since the death of Jesus, the significant majority of adults that were his followers would be dead by now. The idea of a kingdom that was at hand, that some of his disciples would see coming in their lifetimes, could no longer be justified. The nature of the kingdom had to change. Accordingly, there is no more apocalyptic passage describing tribulations, wars, and the return of Jesus in power. The kingdom to come is no longer a new kingdom of Israel on earth, but a heavenly kingdom that people will go to:
““Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. “And you know the way where I am going.”” (John 14:1–4, NASB95)
In fact, Jesus actively resists becoming king of an earthly domain. All the accounts have the story of the 5,000 being fed, but only John adds:
“Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone.” (John 6:14–15, NASB95)
Belief is the key
Acceptance into the kingdom follows a very different standard than in the synoptic gospels. Gone are all the verses about observing the Law to enter the kingdom, verses about narrow gates, separating sheep from goats, weeping and gnashing of teeth, and the like. The words repent or repentance do not appear once in John. Entrance is now strictly based on belief in Jesus and the atonement he made, as summarized in the perhaps most famous Bible verses of modern times:
““For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” (John 3:16–17, NASB95)
There are a number of verses all in this vein of belief granting eternal life. Naturally, this is why all those descriptors like the “bread of life” are applied to Jesus in this account, because salvation begins and ends with him. John draws the connection between the sacrifices demanded by OT law and Jesus as a perfect, sinless sacrifice that will once and for all satisfy the demands of that law. Thus, John (and only John) describes him as the “Lamb of God”. All we need to do is believe it to be true.
Light of the world
Mark said that a lamp should not be put under a basket. Matthew said that “you” (Jesus’ followers) are the light of the world, and retained the idea that light should not be hidden under a basket. In John, Jesus has become the light of the world, a statement made several times.
John the Baptist
As I said, repentance does not appear even once, so what about John? (He is never called John the Baptist in this account.) John is not preaching repentance. His whole purpose in baptizing was to bear witness to the Son of God:
“The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! “This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ “I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. “I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ “I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”” (John 1:29–34, NASB95)
Born again
That famous passage above occurs in the middle of a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. What is not obvious in English is why Nicodemus was apparently so confused, especially given the way this passage is typically translated. As some translations note, the Greek words translated as “born again” can also mean “born from above”. Jesus was likely telling Nico he needed to be “born from above”, but Nico took it in the sense of “born again”, thus his confusion. But the followup statements from Jesus make a lot more sense in the “born from above” sense:
““If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.” (John 3:12–15, NASB95)
No one can be born from above on their own, but only through Jesus who is from above. It is unfortunate that one of the trademark phrases of evangelical Christianity is based on confusion over an ambiguous Greek word.
But here is the kicker: Jesus and the population he was a part of spoke Aramaic, not Greek. In the language he would have had the conversion in with Nicodemus, there would be no confusion. This strongly indicates this story was created later by the author of John who wrote in Greek, where this presumably would be a clever play on words.
For the view that maintains these accounts were written or dictated directly by the apostles, this point leads to a more general problem. The disciples were uneducated men, so it is unlikely they could read and write, but even if they did, it would be highly unlikely they would write in Greek. Or, if they dictated their accounts, why would they dictate it in Aramaic and have it written down in Greek?
Moral teaching
Liberality
John is notable for what it doesn’t say. Gone from this account are the verses about:
Enduring until the end
Selling possessions
Unforgivable sin
First will be last and vice versa
Marriage in the next life
“Blessed are” or “woe to”
Divorce
Adultery
Turn the other cheek
Praying and fasting in secret
Specks and logs in eyes
Defilement
And more...
There is not one parable. There is mention of keeping Jesus’ commandments, but the only thing he asks of his disciples is to love one another. Not even forgiveness appears as a principle. The only time any form of that word appears is after Jesus gives them the Holy Spirit, in this mysterious statement:
“And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”” (John 20:22–23, NASB95)
(As a side note, at the start of Acts they have not yet received the Holy Spirit and wait for it to come down from heaven.)
The theology that is found in John is on par with the most liberal theology in modern times. It gives very little guidance or restriction on how to live.
Lazarus
Here is an interesting evolution of the accounts. The latest of the synoptic gospels, Luke, introduces a parable about Lazarus, with the key point being that even someone coming back from the dead would not have their testimony believed. It is no coincidence that in John we now have a person named Lazarus who is literally raised from the dead, whom the Pharisees wish to kill again because of the testimony of his resurrection. The hypothetical of the parable changed to something more compelling in this account, a person that actually dies and lives again. (I heard this idea in a lecture by Richard Carrier.)
Adulterous woman
This is one of the most famous passages in the NT, and it appears only in John. I cannot count how many times over the years I have heard this referenced in messages and sermons, the theme of “casting the first stone” held up as a wonderful example of Jesus’ compassion. No one ever mentioned, however, that this was not added until hundreds of years later.
Depending on which translation you use, it is not a secret. But it can be subtle. The addition starts at the end of the previous chapter, so the little bracket that marks the start of it is separated from the start of the story itself. As with most things, very conservative scholars find a way to argue that it is just as valid as the rest, that it was a well-known oral tradition that was added, or a passage that rubbed people the wrong way and was removed and then added back. Most scholars, however, have good reasons why they conclude it was added centuries later.
Life of a disciple
Prayer
All the accounts mention prayer, but John has the most unqualified statements, like this:
““Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” (John 14:13–14, NASB95)
Jesus places no limitation on what they can ask for.
In another interesting quirk of this account, no form of pray or prayer appears in it. Perhaps that sounded too ritualistic to the author, but it is pretty unlikely to be a coincidence when it appears dozens of times in the prior accounts.
Holy Spirit
The other accounts also mention the Holy Spirit, but John has the most to say. It is here that we get descriptions like:
Helper (John 14:16–17)
Teach all things (John 14:26)
Testify about Jesus (John 15:26–27)
Convict the world (John 16:7–11)
Disclose what is to come (John 16:13)
Crucifixion and resurrection
Sacrifice
Earlier in this article, I compared the different accounts and showed that John alone has Jesus being crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover. There is a specific reason for this. Consider the description in Luke:
“Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it.”” (Luke 22:7–8, NASB95)
John adjusts the timeline because he wants Jesus to be the lamb sacrificed. Jesus becomes the perfect fulfillment of the Law’s demand for sacrifice.
And Jesus is fully aware of and at peace with this. He was depicted as composed in Luke, but here he is serene and welcoming of his destiny. This is the only account where he does not ask in the garden for “this cup to pass” from him; he does not pray at all. In fact, when the guards come and Peter resists, this is the only account where Jesus says:
“So Jesus said to Peter, “Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?”” (John 18:11, NASB95)
Trial and crucifixion
The trials have more written about them than prior accounts, and Jesus has a bit more to say in them. He has no need for anyone to carry his cross for him.
Jesus does not cry out to the Father. Rather:
“After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, “I am thirsty.” A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth. Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.” (John 19:28–30, NASB95)
He appears to be in control of the situation. He was aware everything had been fulfilled, and apparently let go of his spirit of his own volition.
John makes a point of scriptures being fulfilled:
“For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, “NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.” And again another Scripture says, “THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED.”” (John 19:36–37, NASB95)
But John is also the only account to say that Jesus was pierced with a spear and that his legs were not broken. John supplies the necessary facts to satisfy the scriptures to which he refers.
Jesus appears
Mary sees Jesus at the tomb, and he says:
“Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’ ” Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her.” (John 20:17–18, NASB95)
To me, this says that he was going to ascend and he needed this message passed on to the disciples. It is not clear why he would need her to tell the disciples this when he was going to appear to them later that evening. As is fitting for the themes in this account, this is the only one with this statement about belief:
“Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”” (John 20:29, NASB95)
No further mention is actually made of Jesus ascending. Instead, he appears to them at some indeterminate point later at the Sea of Galilee while they are fishing. That is the last we see of Jesus in this account.
Summary of John
John radically transforms what the prior accounts said about Jesus, carrying the themes to their extremes, looking much like modern views of Christianity. Jesus was God from the very beginning, and he came with the express purpose of being a sacrifice to satisfy the demands of the Law. Actions do not matter, just a belief in Jesus, and accordingly, virtually no moral guidance is given. The kingdom of God is not a kingdom on the earth that is at hand, but a heavenly destination to be reached, open to all.
Mark, revisited
As noted earlier, and as is indicated in some translations, Mark originally ended at verse 8. Perhaps some later scribe realized that this ending was anticlimactic, particularly when compared with the other accounts that had been written in the meantime. Or perhaps a separate text was grafted on. Whatever the reason, this ending did not come about until the early 2nd century, after the other accounts had been written. The added verses, from verse 9 through the end, pull in elements from those accounts, besides adding some unique ones. The amount of stuff condensed into these few verses is amazing, apparently trying to bring this account in line with the others.
We have the idea of Mary passing along to the disciples that she saw Jesus, and them not believing her, like in Luke. Also paralleling Luke, Jesus appears to two men walking. Like Luke and John, Jesus appears to the disciples together. From Matthew, we get the idea of going to all the nations and baptizing them, coupled with the idea of belief from John. Speaking in tongues occurs in Acts. The ascension occurs like in Luke.
It is unclear if the apparently unique items pull from other writings in circulation, or are the scribe’s attempt to punch this up even more. One is the ability to pick up snakes, apparently being immune to their poison. (Anyone can pick up a snake if they really want to; that is not the miraculous part.) I’m not sure how common a concern this was, but also granted is immunity to poison that one drinks. Defending these added passages as legitimate also includes these powers. Most Christians will not take these verses at face value and put them to the test, but some do. And pay for it.
The Gospels, in total
For many centuries, the prevailing view was that Earth is the center of the universe, and the Sun, planets, and stars all revolve around it. With enough effort, it is indeed possible to construct a mathematical model that works from that view. From the perspective of Earth, the other planets move erratically, including back and forth in the sky, so the model to explain that is complicated and unwieldy, but it more or less gets the job done. At some point, someone considered a model with the Sun at the center of the planets, including Earth, and realized it was tremendously more simple and intuitive. The planets move in circles (later realized to be ellipses) around the Sun, end of story. It took some time for this view to be accepted, but indeed society has, because it simply works so much better than the older model.
Looking at two different models of the four gospels, I am faced with a similar choice. The conservative view, as represented by Cold Case, is that these are four eye-witness accounts from different perspectives. But there are some deep conflicts between the accounts, including on the fundamental question of what it takes to be saved, and conflicts with history. Nonetheless, with enough mental gymnastics, it is possible to defend that view.
When looked at as a series of individual works that were written over time, the logical problems go away. Each account is self-consistent. There is a clear and explainable evolution of Jesus, his resurrection, the kingdom itself, the requirements for entrance into it, and so on. This view works so much better than the other that, like the planetary models, I am compelled to accept it, regardless of the implications.
Other corroboration
There are some other justifications for why the gospels are true that we should look at. One is the idea of third party mentions of Jesus, particularly if they are made by people that weren’t fans of his. The other idea is that Jesus satisfied prophecies found in OT scripture.
Third parties
Cold Case Christianity makes mention of various historical references to Jesus, as seen here. I will look at one as an example, that of Celsus:
“Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.”
For Wallace (the author of Cold Case), the fact that Celsus, who did not like Jesus, states that Jesus had magical powers carries some weight. The thinking is that it is one thing for a fan of Jesus to say he had powers, but quite another for someone hostile to him to say that.
This in fact means little, if anything. It would carry more weight if Celsus had himself seen Jesus. But as it is, Celsus was recording what he had heard said about Jesus. At this stage of civilization, people held all kinds of supernatural beliefs. Most people were illiterate, and the idea of the scientific method was still far in the future. There were no televisions, radios, or websites, so people generally only knew what they heard through word-of-mouth what was happening outside of their communities. So the idea that people were spreading stories of Jesus’ powers (and believing them) is hardly significant. They also believed stories about Zeus and Hercules.
This passage also mentions Egyptians having magical powers. Is this then proof that the Egyptians did, in fact, have the ability to do magic? Is this knowledge they somehow lost over the centuries? Or do they still secretly have this knowledge?
That is the problem with any of these historical quotes. They may well have accurately recorded what people were saying about Jesus, but people said all kinds of things. It doesn’t make them true.
Prophecy
Evidence That Demands a Verdict contains a chapter describing prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled. They have picked the most compelling ones, in their estimation, and I’m going to try to touch on all of them in this section, but first let me discuss this generally.
There is this idea that prophecies are multi-layered in the OT. As in, there are verses that describe something that happened in the OT that also look forward to events that would happen later. Possibly, but this is not a principle stated in the Bible anywhere; this is a conclusion reached by apologists. The end result looks exactly the same as people trying to connect their current events to OT scriptures after the fact. This should become clear when we look at their examples.
Types and Foreshadowings
I am going to organize this in the same way Evidence has their chapter organized. The first section is about events that represent a type of Christ.
Passover lamb
Here is their first example:
The problem is that nothing in that OT passage (or the entire OT law as far as I know) indicates the NT theology that would come later, saying that a sinless Son of God would act as the final, perfect sacrifice. Not even a little. There is no indication that the sacrifices would one day end, and no reference to God taking on the sins of His creation.
This is very much people in the NT looking backwards, making a connection after the fact. Clearly John wanted to make this connection, that Jesus was the Passover lamb, and indeed Jesus was crucified around that time. But so were the robbers on either side of him. This foreshadowing only carries weight if you already accept John’s premise that Jesus was the sinless lamb. It doesn’t provide any evidence that he was. This is the problem with all of the examples in this section.
Christ the Lord’s provision
When God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and then stops him and provides a lamb to sacrifice instead, the only significance that God connects to it is being a test of Abraham’s faith:
“Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”” (Genesis 22:15–18, NASB95)
NT writers and later apologists have then made much of the lamb being provided, that Isaac was Abraham’s only son, that Abraham (presumably) believed God could raise Isaac, and so on, connecting this to Jesus being provided by God.
Christ as high priest and king
Very little is said of Melchizedek in the OT, but tremendous theologies about Jesus have been spun out of it. The core concept is that Melchizedek was both a king and a priest. Now the point of this chapter in Evidence is supposed to be prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, as proof that Jesus is what people claim him to be, but the only way this can be claimed to be filled is if you already accept those claims.
The angel of Yahweh
In the OT, various times an angel speaks on behalf of the Lord. Jesus functions as this in the NT...but again, only if you already accept the claims about him.
The bronze serpent
In the OT, God sends a judgment of snakes upon His people, and asks Moses to fashion a bronze serpent on a pole, so that whoever looked at it would live. This is a one-off story of being punished by snakes and the mystical cure being to look at an image of a snake. (I’m not sure how, while traveling in the middle of the desert, Moses was able to on the spot fashion a snake made out of bronze in a timely enough fashion to save the people that were actively being attacked.) There is no hint of a future sacrifice, let alone a divine one.
The Son of Man
Without a doubt, the NT depicts Jesus frequently referring to himself as the Son of Man. And there is indeed in Daniel chapter 7 an apocalyptic passage that refers to the same title. But we once again have the circular logic that Jesus only fulfills that description of the Son of Man if you already believe he does.
Of course, with Daniel being an apocalyptic book, it has the same problems of context as the NT apocalyptic themes, which was already discussed above.
Messianic predictive prophecies
In this section, we have prophecies that involve actual predictions that can be examined.
Bethlehem
““But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”” (Micah 5:2, NASB95)
There are two parts to this. One is that the future ruler (presumably the Messiah) will come from Bethlehem. It is fairly well established that Jesus was from Nazareth, so both Matthew and Luke give accounts of how Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem, but these accounts conflict with each other. They are also quite unlikely to be true historically. Furthermore, we have this dispute among the people in John:
“Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” Others were saying, “This is the Christ.” Still others were saying, “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? “Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him.” (John 7:40–43, NASB95)
They are disputing Jesus being the Messiah specifically because they know the Messiah will be of the line of David, born in Bethlehem, and Jesus was not. There is no rebuttal offered by other people or Jesus indicating that he really was born there.
The other is interpreted to mean this ruler has an eternal origin. This is not a prediction that can be examined, but another one of these things that only applies to Jesus if you already accept that it does.
Prophet
“‘I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18, NASB95)
The great thing about taking verses out of context is that they can be made to mean many things. Apologists interpret this as referring to a singular prophet that is the Messiah. More context lends insight into this, but some background material from earlier in the book will help first:
““These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain from the midst of the fire, of the cloud and of the thick gloom, with a great voice, and He added no more. He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me. “And when you heard the voice from the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders. “You said, ‘Behold, the LORD our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire; we have seen today that God speaks with man, yet he lives. ‘Now then why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any longer, then we will die. ‘For who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? ‘Go near and hear all that the LORD our God says; then speak to us all that the LORD our God speaks to you, and we will hear and do it.’” (Deuteronomy 5:22–27, NASB95)
Essentially the Israelites are terrified of God and do not want to approach Him. They want someone to be an intermediary.
And now, the context of the original verse:
““The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. “This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ “The LORD said to me, ‘They have spoken well. ‘I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. ‘It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. ‘But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ “You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’ “When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15–22, NASB95)
Moses is referring back to that earlier time when they asked for an intermediary. He is assuring them that prophets will continue to be raised up to act in that capacity (Moses will not be around forever, after all.) It is clear he is not speaking of a singular prophet, nor of a perfect one. Why would there be descriptions of a prophet speaking presumptuously or in the names of other gods, and dying because of it, if this were about a singular perfect prophet? Why would Moses give the too-obvious advice that if what a prophet says doesn’t come true, it didn’t come from God? Moses is describing an ongoing process of prophets being called out of the people. Some of them will predict things that do not happen, and those are the ones to ignore.
This is where apologists say that prophetic verses can have two layers, the meaning applicable for the time it was in, and another layer that applies to the future. Perhaps, but if that future layer can only be recognized in hindsight, it is not useful as a predictor, especially when it requires such a generalized, out-of-context interpretation. There is nothing in this passage that points to a messianic figure. The only real overlap Jesus has with this is that he was a Jew, and the prophets Moses spoke of would also be Jews. And even that overlap is applicable only if you already accept Jesus is a prophet.
Stem of Jesse
“Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, And He will not judge by what His eyes see, Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;” (Isaiah 11:1–3, NASB95)
This is definitely a Messianic prophecy. The only predictive part is being “from the stem of Jesse”, who was David’s father. It is established that the Jews thought their Messiah would be a descendent of David. What is less established is that Jesus was. Mark, the earliest account, makes no explicit claim as such; he never even mentions Joseph at all. Matthew and Luke both do make that claim, but provide widely conflicting genealogies in doing so. John mentions nothing of David except that dispute over Jesus’ birth I mentioned above.
As for the rest, it is the familiar catch-22 where it only applies if you have already decided it does. But just for fun, let’s go one verse further:
“But with righteousness He will judge the poor, And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.” (Isaiah 11:4, NASB95)
This doesn’t sound like the modern picture of Jesus. You can claim this is what Jesus will be like when he returns, but then he hasn’t fulfilled this yet. If you keep reading further, it is clear that passage of Isaiah is talking about a new earthly kingdom of Israel. This does align with the conception of the kingdom in the synoptic gospels, but clearly this kingdom hasn’t happened.
Judge
“For the LORD is our judge, The LORD is our lawgiver, The LORD is our king; He will save us—” (Isaiah 33:22, NASB95)
Catch 22.
King
““But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”” (Psalm 2:6, NASB95)
Catch 22.
A voice calling
“A voice is calling, “Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.” (Isaiah 40:3, NASB95)
There was most likely a John the Baptist, so there is that. This is hardly distinctive, though. Anyone who believes the Messiah is coming and announces it satisfies this.
Galilee
“But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.” (Isaiah 9:1, NASB95)
Jesus is historically from Galilee, true. But what do the next verses say?
“The people who walk in darkness Will see a great light; Those who live in a dark land, The light will shine on them. You shall multiply the nation, You shall increase their gladness; They will be glad in Your presence As with the gladness of harvest, As men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For You shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders, The rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian. For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult, And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.” (Isaiah 9:2–7, NASB95)
Christian apologists want to use the Jewish prophecies about a Messiah but they also claim the Jews did not really understand the nature of the Messiah and therefore did not recognize Jesus as such. But the Jewish picture is pretty consistent that their Messiah will be a king and leader who would restore the kingdom of Israel, a kingdom raised to such heights that it would dominate the world. There is talk here of multiplying the nation and breaking their burdens. Their kings were military leaders, and we see here the boots and bloody cloaks of the warriors who oppressed them will be fuel for a fire. This concept of the kingdom indeed agrees with the synoptic gospels, but obviously this didn’t happen: Jesus did not throw off the oppression of the Romans and did not establish a new kingdom of David.
The blind and deaf
“Then the eyes of the blind will be opened And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped.” (Isaiah 35:5, NASB95)
The gospels certainly claim Jesus did miracles like this, but there is also no historical corroboration of that.
And then, like the previous passage, this is part of a bigger text that is prophesying the great kingdom of Israel that is coming:
“Then the lame will leap like a deer, And the tongue of the mute will shout for joy. For waters will break forth in the wilderness And streams in the Arabah. The scorched land will become a pool And the thirsty ground springs of water; In the haunt of jackals, its resting place, Grass becomes reeds and rushes. A highway will be there, a roadway, And it will be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean will not travel on it, But it will be for him who walks that way, And fools will not wander on it. No lion will be there, Nor will any vicious beast go up on it; These will not be found there. But the redeemed will walk there, And the ransomed of the LORD will return And come with joyful shouting to Zion, With everlasting joy upon their heads. They will find gladness and joy, And sorrow and sighing will flee away.” (Isaiah 35:6–10, NASB95)
The rest of this did not happen. So then is that evidence against Jesus being the Messiah?
Parables
“I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old,” (Psalm 78:2, NASB95)
The composer of the Psalm, Asaph, is saying he is going to tell parables. The psalm is about remembering the great things that God has done for the Israelites. It is essentially a recap of their history. There is nothing in the context of this that is about a messiah.
There is also nothing distinctive about speaking in parables or stories. This “prophecy” is people looking back trying to make a connection.
Entering the temple
““Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts.” (Malachi 3:1, NASB95)
This is again another tenuous connection. Jesus fulfills this only if you already accept he is God.
And exactly what is being fulfilled? The claim is this is fulfilled by Jesus driving out the merchants in the temple. Maybe, but there is nothing here like that. It is such a general statement that anyone (that you wish to claim is God) doing anything in the temple could be said to fulfill this.
Riding a donkey
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” (Zechariah 9:9, NASB95)
The gospels do indeed record Jesus riding in on a donkey. But anyone wishing to fulfill this just needed to ride a donkey.
Egypt
“When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.” (Hosea 11:1, NASB95)
Evidence doesn’t list this prophecy here, but Matthew references it. The problem here is this verse is not about the Messiah and is not even a prophecy. God is speaking about calling Israel out of Egypt. One can propose there is a second layer here, but nothing in the context indicates that layer:
“When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. The more they called them, The more they went from them; They kept sacrificing to the Baals And burning incense to idols. Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them in My arms; But they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love, And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws; And I bent down and fed them.” (Hosea 11:1–4, NASB95)
There is nothing here about a messiah. And the story that Matthew has about Jesus’ family going to Egypt is problematic anyway.
The servant song of Isaiah
This passage, Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12, is probably the one that is held up the most as proof that the experiences of Jesus were prophesied in the OT. However, this is certainly not the only view of this passage. Remember, the OT is the Hebrew Bible, and Judaism had an interpretation for this before Christianity did. As discussed above, their messiah was not a suffering messiah, but a victorious leader who would not only restore the kingdom of Israel, but lead it as the greatest nation in the world. The synoptic gospels also saw their messiah that way, but had to reconcile that view with the reality that Jesus was executed, and developed the idea that the Messiah had to suffer. So one point is that this passage was not traditionally a messianic prophecy because this is not the traditional view of the Messiah.
Another point is that several times, the servant is identified:
““But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham My friend,” (Isaiah 41:8, NASB95)
“He said to Me, “You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory.”” (Isaiah 49:3, NASB95)
““But now listen, O Jacob, My servant, And Israel, whom I have chosen:” (Isaiah 44:1, NASB95)
““Remember these things, O Jacob, And Israel, for you are My servant; I have formed you, you are My servant, O Israel, you will not be forgotten by Me.” (Isaiah 44:21, NASB95)
““For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel My chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me.” (Isaiah 45:4, NASB95)
Then there is the question of how applicable the passage actually is.
There are certainly some parallels that can be drawn, but various parts of this passage have to be glossed over to make it work.
Prophecy summary
There are more verses that Evidence cites, many in summary form. But they are no stronger than the ones above, so there is no point in examining them. The ones we’ve looked at are sufficient. All of the claimed prophecies fall into three categories.
The first and biggest category is those that describe attributes of the Messiah. They just go around in a loop:
“How do you know Jesus is the Messiah?”
“Because of the many verses that describe the Messiah: king, judge, counselor, prince of peace, and on and on.”
“But how do you know Jesus is all or any of those things?”
“Because he is the Messiah!”
The second category are prophecies that are not actually prophecies. Like the one about being called out of Egypt, there is no prediction being made in the OT passage and no messianic reference. The verse has a plain meaning in its context. These are the result of people in hindsight trying to draw connections from Jesus to the OT.
The third category are those that actually predict something observable, like being born in Bethlehem. There aren’t many of these. And unfortunately, as discussed prior, it certainly looks like the authors purposely added details to their accounts that would line up with these.
For years, I’ve heard about the numerous prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, and the astronomical odds that any one person would fulfill them by chance alone. Having finally looked at this topic in detail for myself now, this idea of prophecy seems to be about what people want to see, as opposed to objective facts.
The disciples
There is one last topic for this article, the disciples of Jesus. After his crucifixion, it would be these people that would be the ones to tell his story.
Paul
Paul is arguably the most influential person in Christianity after Jesus himself. Though there is dispute about some of them, the majority of the books in the NT are attributed to him. The consensus view actually places his writings closer to Jesus’ death than the gospels. His writings actually have some interesting comparisons to be made with the gospel accounts, but examining that could take up a whole other series of articles. One broad observation is that little is actually said about the words and deeds of Jesus, even when they would be fitting for a given topic Paul is discussing. Nonetheless, Paul is clearly someone that believes.
Given his influence, it is highly relevant then to ask what his motivation was in all of this, especially since it apparently resulted in a complete reversal for him. Instead of persecuting Christians, he became perhaps its greatest champion. But what brought about this reversal? The straightforward answer is the traditional one that takes everything at face value: Jesus appeared to Paul in some form, Paul understood the error of his ways, and he changed his life accordingly, with Jesus guiding him spiritually thereafter. Any other answer always seemed implausible to me. Why would Paul throw away a promising future for events he had no actual connection to? If this all were a fraud, what did Paul have to gain? It apparently resulted in a pretty hard life and an early death. This all led me to the conclusion that the face value interpretation was the only reasonable interpretation of Paul’s life, which then became evidence for taking the gospel accounts at face value.
But is it in fact the only reasonable interpretation? I don’t think so anymore. I’m not saying I have the interpretation, but I have another. Paul may have fully believed something that wasn’t actually true due to mental illness. I’ve seen up close people whose minds suffer from delusions, living with beliefs that are so very real to them but are in fact just products of their minds. And I’ve already referenced A Beautiful Mind. Maybe it isn’t common, but it is entirely possible to be brilliant and productive despite such illness. So, out of all the literate people in Jesus’ time, is it not possible that there was one who labored under such an illness and came to believe they were called by Jesus to a very important, special purpose? Let’s not forget that Paul also had at least one vision of heaven. People in his time had no understanding of such illness. Everything was demon possession, being touched by a god, or some other supernatural influence. It seems to me this is an entirely plausible possibility.
Obviously, if this interpretation is true or even just possible, then Paul no longer is solid evidence for the truth of the gospels. His actions can be explained another way.
The companions
Finally, there are the close companions of Jesus. If the gospel accounts were exaggerated or hoaxes, these people (and likely only these people) would know for sure, because they would have been the ones to do it. I applied similar reasoning as to Paul, just to a higher degree. What possible benefit would it be for them to spread this idea that belief in Jesus leads to salvation if it weren’t true? It would surely give them no hope, since they would know they made it up. It wouldn’t be until later that people figured out how to acquire power and money from these ideas, so they didn’t benefit that way either. Traditionally, they mostly suffered early deaths over these beliefs, and there is no record of any of them recanting. This only further points to the sincerity of those beliefs. This became one of my firm anchors to which I attached the links in the chain of my faith: if there is no plausible reason for the disciples to lie, then their accounts are true, and once we know that, all of Christian faith can (and must) be built on that accordingly.
Cold Case goes down a parallel line of reasoning. Wallace draws on his experience as a detective, making various observations on how criminals tend to operate. They have clear motivations (e.g. money). Their stories change when questioned again years later. The more people that have to be involved in a conspiracy, the harder it is to pull off. It all leads to the apostles being reliable witnesses.
So what is the problem? Isn’t this a strong enough basis for Christianity? For most of my life, it certainly was. And then I lived through the last few years of Trump and a pandemic.
What became painfully obvious is that people are capable of building fervent belief on almost nothing, even in the face of reason and considerable evidence that opposes those beliefs. The QAnon conspiracy sprang into existence based solely on some posts making unsubstantiated claims on an Internet forum. It actually has some unsettling parallels to the Jewish apocalyptic beliefs I discussed earlier. When their “storm” didn’t come, some indeed abandoned their belief, but some only dug in deeper. I’ve now seen for myself the birth of religious belief from nothing.
Wallace tries to head off this religious counter to his line of reasoning by differentiating the people that originate a false belief (since they know it is false) from those who accept that belief and act on it. And there is some merit in that, but it is not sufficient. In the context of religious belief, people are motivated to act in extreme ways. Criminals cannot be compared to zealots. Criminals need a payoff (in this life) for their actions, such as money, but a fanatic will become a suicide bomber. Even the most devoted fan of a given book will not study it like a zealot does a religious text. A criminal’s story may change under repeated questioning, but a zealot’s convictions will not. Cold Case considers some other ideas, some of which have been addressed in these articles, but the major theme of the book is analyzing Christianity like he does a criminal case. But it isn’t a criminal case. It’s a matter of religious belief, and the rules are not the same.
The apostles wouldn’t have needed a payoff like money or power. They would have maintained their beliefs in the face of negative consequences. If they truly believed they had been accompanying the Messiah, they would have been highly motivated to reconcile their beliefs with the reality of his death. A group of researchers wrote a seminal book on cognitive dissonance (which is when the mind has to reconcile conflicting beliefs) called When Prophecy Fails. They heard about a cult that believed the earth was going to be destroyed but that aliens would save a select few. They infiltrated the group to observe what would happen when, inevitably, there was no destruction or aliens. Many people did not maintain their beliefs, but the most committed members became even more committed. The same thing happened with QAnon. It has happened many times with various Christian sects. The innermost group of Jesus’ followers would certainly be in a similar mental state, and it is possible that they reconciled their cognitive dissonance by believing that their messiah came back from the dead.
Connecting these dots from the rise of QAnon to their cognitive dissonance to the apostles became one factor that began this research project. That substantial anchor for my faith, the apostles’ belief in spite of no benefit to them, was no longer so solid. And now that I have done this deep dive on the gospel accounts from a more objective view than I have ever considered, the possible motivations of the apostles have become clearer to me. The apostles were expecting Jesus to be the Messiah that would bring about the restored kingdom of Israel they had been waiting for. Jesus was trying to raise popular support for this new kingdom, which would have necessarily involved the overthrow of the existing government by divine will and power. With the death of Jesus, his core group of followers would still want to continue the momentum of this movement. They may have told themselves that Jesus was resurrected to reconcile their cognitive dissonance, but they also may have deliberately spread this idea so that support for their movement would continue. Remember, the earliest account, Mark, just ends with a message that Jesus resurrected, but with no one actually seeing him and no concept of an ascension and return. And the women that received the message told no one. As examined earlier, the story about Jesus grew and morphed over the decades. The idea of Jesus ascending and returning and the idea of a kingdom in heaven entered by belief in Jesus were later ideas. The apostles only needed to make peace with the idea (or be willing to spread the idea) that Jesus wasn’t actually dead after all. The rest would be built on that core later.
Conclusions
Considering everything this article covers in light of the goal of this project, to find objective evidence for Christianity, there is little I can point to. Jesus almost certainly lived and was crucified. But everything beyond that changes with each iteration of the gospel stories. All the claims of miracles and Jesus’ resurrection are only supported by these writings which can’t agree with each other over what actually happened. It started off as the hope of a glorious, restored kingdom of Israel soon to be brought about by an apocalyptic battle led by their Messiah. It gradually changed into a heavenly kingdom that people go to after death, open to the entire world, with the only requirement being a belief in a divine Jesus and his sacrifice. The claims of extraordinary fulfillment of prophecy are just people looking backwards trying to find connections, starting with the authors of the gospels and continuing into modern conservative scholarship.
At this point, given everything this and prior articles have covered, I’ve seen no evidence that the writings of the Bible are historically accurate or meant to be taken literally and plenty of evidence against. Frankly, there is nothing here that provides evidence for Christianity. If there is any kernel of truth in all this, the last place to look for evidence is in the lives of modern Christians, which the next article will examine.
You dismissed Daniel 7 pretty quickly. It goes way beyond simply sharing the title of "Son of Man." v.13-14 describe the Son of Man as "given dominion, Glory, and a kingdom that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed." That a poor carpenter in a poor nation with no connections or political power could accomplish dominance on the world religion stage across the globe... I don't know what your looking for
ReplyDeletePerhaps I need to elaborate more there. This isn't an observable prediction like being born in Bethlehem is. The entirety of that statement is only applicable if Jesus is, in fact, the Messiah. If Jesus died and was not resurrected, there is no everlasting kingdom or dominion. Sure, if you already accept the claims about Jesus, then that statement is applicable. But it in no way demonstrates he actually is the Son of Man that passage speaks of.
DeleteLet me try a different angle. Anyone can claim to be the fulfillment of that by simply stating it. If I were looking for a really different spiritual direction in life, I could claim to be the Son of Man that passage was speaking of. I could claim to lead an eternal kingdom with everlasting dominion. Me pointing to that verse would in no way validate my claims. Even if many people were to (unwisely) believe my claim, there is nothing that I or they could point to in that passage that lines up with something about my life, other than the claim itself.
DeleteIt is an observable fact that Jesus has become the dominant religious figure on the globe. We're going on 2000 years, and every corner of the globe has people serving him. The fulfillment occurs after the association is made, he's not attaching himself to something that had already happened.
DeleteThis is mistaking cause for effect. Agreed, the belief has greatly spread over 2000 years and now many people believe it. It is a self fulfilling prophecy from that perspective: many people now believe Jesus is the Son of Man, so that validates his initial claims. But it also requires a radical reinterpretation of Daniel 7 that says the kingdom of which he spoke is nothing more than the collection of people that believe in it. The entire chapter is talking about kingdoms here on earth (the beasts), temporal power, not unseen spiritual kingdoms. God's holy people were oppressed, not spiritually, but by an earthly government. The Son of Man was supposed to deliver them from that to a new, everlasting kingdom on earth. And this is precisely what Jesus was preaching, that the kingdom was at hand, in the earliest accounts. Jesus died and the holy people remained oppressed. The way believers reconciled reality with the prediction was to reinterpret the kingdom as something unearthly, but that view is out of line with the rest of Daniel 7. "His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him." By no stretch can I say all or even many rulers worship Jesus, let alone obey him.
Delete