Notes on Matthew 4:12-25: Questions, Chronology, and Fishers Of Men

Welcome to the GGFApologetics Notes on Matthew blog.  I am determined to work my way through a deep dive in The Gospel of Matthew this year.  Observations may range from pastoral to simple questions or a survey of Bible difficulties.  I will be drawing information from many different commentaries, articles and scholars. Sources noted below.

Let’s continue.

The second half of the fourth chapter in The Gospel of Matthew moves from Satan’s temptation narratives to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.  Verse eleven left Him in the company of angels with the devil departing as Jesus ordered him away, overcoming the evil one will become a recurring theme throughout the gospel narrative. 

Reading The Bible Like A Novel

We notice when the story picks up again in verse twelve that the Evangelist is concerned with Jesus’ movements.  He lists several geographical locations in a short block of text. Matthew opens with a curious statement: “When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he returned to Galilee” (v. 12).  

Why?  Why does this prompt Jesus to move His ministry?  

Issues like these remind me of something I remember hearing from Bible scholar Michael Heiser.  He says we should read the Bible like it’s a novel. That is not to say that we assume it’s fiction or that it’s a lower form of writing somehow.  No. The statement acknowledges that we read novels with curiosity. With novels, we are looking to make connections to information given earlier or making note of present material to see if it pops up again later.  Reading novels, we are acutely aware of the work of the author and where he wants to lead the reader.  So, according to Heiser, when we read that Jesus returned to Galilee once He heard about John’s imprisonment, if the answer isn’t obvious, we should ask “Why?”  Why would Matthew include this information? Is it something his audience would understand without explanation?  

In this case, there were a few practical advantages for Jesus moving His ministry along the Sea of Galilee to Capernaum, a lakeside fishing village.  Capernaum was a busier, more populated place than Nazareth. There would be more resources, supplies for His ministry. And more people. A more populated mission field.  However, an increasingly dire reason may have been to get beyond the reach of Herod Antipas, who famously imprisoned John.

But Why? 

In my research, I uncovered a couple ways to look at the Why questions.  First, this passage represents another example of “Fulfillment Prophecy”.  Second, it may also offer commentary to Christ followers about recent events happening near the time of the Gospel’s writing in 80-85 AD.

 Fulfillment Prophecy

Matthew’s motivation for mentioning these locations, like Nazareth, Capernaum, and Zebulun and Naphtali, beyond historical detail may have more to do with his habit of reaching back into the Old Testament to bolster the prophetic street credentials of Jesus.  This time, it involves verse 13 of the Gospel:  

“Leaving Nazareth, he went and live in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali– to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:  ‘Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way to the sea, along the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles — the people living in the darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned.’” ( Matthew 12-16 referring to Isaiah 9:1,2)

Yes.  Matthew reports another fulfillment of prophecy, this time from Isa. 9:1,2.  It’s interesting that the apostle condenses the passage from Isaiah seemingly just to highlight the presence of those city names and make the connection between those locations and the “dawning light” (Jesus).  The full text from Isaiah read:

“[a]Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—

2   The people walking in darkness

    have seen a great light;

on those living in the land of deep darkness

    a light has dawned.”

Topical, not Chronological

Here is a good place to make note that Matthew often arranged information topically, not chronologically.  So we must not think that John was locked up immediately after Jesus’ final temptation. So if this historical event is not to be understood as listed chronologically, why include it here?  Again, we should ask why. Scholar Warren Carter believes the text served as a cultural commentary on Post-Resurrection life:

“This Isaiah text functions in Matthew 4:12-16 as an analogy for Rome’s empire. “Galilee owned by or under the Gentiles” now belongs to and is ruled by another Gentile empire. Roman control had been freshly asserted over Galilee in destroying Jerusalem and its temple in 70CE. Matthew’s Gospel, written in the 80s, cites Isaiah 9:1-2 to describe Roman rule as ‘darkness” and ‘death.’ It positions Jesus, at the beginning of his public ministry, as the light or saving presence that shines in the darkness of Rome’s imperial domination. Jesus asserts God’s light or saving rule in Roman Galilee.” (Carter)

So, while not listed in this chapter to represent strict historical record, Matthew references recent tragic events, the Temple destruction ten years or so earlier, to convey to his Jewish audience Jesus’ place in history.  He offers the real hope of Christ to a defeated people.

The Kingdom Of Heaven

“From that time on Jesus began to preach . . .” (v.17) There are a couple times where Matthew uses a phrase like this to mark our entrance into a different section of the Matthew’s Gospel. The other similar verse is Matthew 16:21 which announces that: 

“From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

So verse 17 separates this proclaiming of the kingdom from the first part of the gospel, the introduction (Matt 1-4), and Matthew 16 begins Jesus’ journey to the Cross (Matt 16-28).  These markers divide the book, again, by topic. Four chapters within the Introduction. Twelve chapters in each of the final two sections.

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” (v.17 continued)  This may sound familiar to those following along in this Matthew study because it is the identical message of John The Baptist.  Or is it? Scholar and commentator FF Bruce explains these words have different meaning when said by Jesus:

“Jesus’ message is summed up in the same words as John’s preaching but ‘the kingdom of heaven’ on his lips had not the same connotation as it did on John’s.  Jesus’ call to repentance was a call to men to re-access all personal and social values in the light of the approach of the divine kingdom in His ministry. . .” (Bruce, “UTNT”. P 15.)

Interestingly, because Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience, we have this much repeated phrase “Kingdom of Heaven”.  In Warren Wiersbe’s “Be Loyal” commentary on Matthew, he explains that, out of reverence for our Good Good Father, the Jewish people would not use the phrase “Kingdom of God”.  So they would use the word Heaven in its place. Kingdom of Heaven is mentioned thirty-two times in Matthew’s Gospel, while mentioning Kingdom of God only five times.  In parallel stories, in Mark and Luke, Kingdom of God has the majority of use.  Both those gospels were written to a non-Jewish audience, the Romans.

Wiersbe goes on to explain that:

“In the New Testament, the word kingdom means ‘rule, reign, authority’ rather than a place or a specific realm.  The phrase “kingdom of heaven” refers to the rule of God. The Jewish leaders wanted a political leader who would deliver them from Rome, but Jesus came to bring spiritual rule to the hearts of people.” (p42,43)

When Wiersbe mentions that Jewish leaders expected, in Jesus, a political leader, not a spiritual one, it makes me think about how we often observe uninformed criticism from skeptics.  These unbelievers scoff at examples of prophecy fulfillment inferring that New Testament writers simply invented the actions of Jesus in order to coincide with what was reported or prophesied in the Old Testament. But this accusation, in many cases, ignores the fact that the ancient Jewish people misunderstood so much about the coming of Jesus, who He would be, and how God’s Will would be accomplished.  The true events of the New Testament, in effect, would represent poorly told lies, in that the truth would be more difficult to believe because it so violently diverted from common Jewish thought.  

Fishers of Men

If one were to have The Gospel of Matthew as their only source for knowledge of the story of Jesus, they would have to believe that, seemingly out of the blue, Jesus commanded Peter and Andrew to “follow” Him in verse 19.  And they immediately dropped their nets and left their father Zebedee to follow this stranger. Remember, that before this, though, the events of John 1:19-3:36 had already unfolded. Jesus wasn’t a stranger at all. Jesus had spent a day with Peter, Andrew, James, and an unnamed disciple (possibly John) before calling them into service.  

The fishermen knew Him as the “Messiah” and John The Baptist had testified to them about Jesus before they were called into service.  The men did not follow Him blindly or as entranced sheep.

Note, this section of scripture also features the famous “fishers of men” line, for me, remembered so well from a children’s church song from Sunday school.  Well, interestingly, a similar phrase can be found in Jeremiah 16:16. But there, it’s fishers for men, meaning men catching people in judgment.  Jesus, on the other hand, ordained men to save people from judgement.  Another example of how Jesus turned the Jewish world on its head when he came here to be with us.

In closing, did Jesus turn your world on its head?  How differently would you be living if not for Jesus?  How has hope in Him changed you? Changed your relationships?  How would you describe this experience to an unbeliever?

God helping us, may we be true “Fishers of Men”.

Sources:

Carter, Warren. https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=3138

Bruce, FF.  “Understanding the New Testament:  Matthew”. Page 15.

Wiersbe, Warren.  “Be Loyal: Following The King Of Kings”. Pages 42,43.

Notes on Matthew 4:1-11: Testing Jesus

I started blogging Matthew at the beginning of the year to coincide with my pledge to engage in in depth study of the Gospel over the next calendar year.  This means reading commentaries, articles, textual criticism, and anything I can get my hands on about the Gospel of Matthew. Sometimes, my reflections will be pastoral or a discussion of Bible difficulties or simply thinking out loud in an attempt to get to the heart of what our Good Good Father wants us to know about Him.

Let’s begin.

Chapter four starts as Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.  It’s interesting to note that the devil does not initiate this event. The “Spirit” led Jesus there.  This was a period of testing approved and incited by God. Scholar and commentator RT France calls it an examination of Jesus’ newly revealed relationship with God.

A Hungry God?  

When it comes to this testing, there is a likely comparison to be made between Jesus, Son of God, and John The Baptist, maker of a way.  To start, God secluded John into the wilderness. He sent Jesus into the desert (v.1). John found sustenance in bugs and honey. Jesus, He made fast for 40 days and 40 nights.  Scripture confirms that He was hungry (v.2). Jesus clearly upped the ante in terms of sacrificial obedience. God tested both men. But the human state of His Son, He weakened and then matched Him against the devil, Satan, the Adversary.

How well do you hold up to temptation?  If I am being honest, for myself, not very well.  A couple weeks ago, I participated in a 21-day period of fasting and prayer.  The fasting part is not what it sounds like. I gave up caffeine. I didn’t even give up coffee;  I drank decaf. I had the opportunity to buy caffeinated joe every morning. No one would know what is in my insulated mug and surely nobody at work knew about my pledge.  But the temptation was definitely there. Admittedly, this might be a starkly, unremarkable comparison, but Jesus, recently empowered by the Holy Spirit (3:16), had the power to end his own hunger and the devil, as true to form, uses this fact to his advantage as we see in his first attempt to corrupt the Son of God.  He says, “If you are the Son of God, tell those stones to become bread.” (v.3)  To this Jesus responds from Deut. 8:3, “It is written:  Man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (v.4)

RT France says of the tempting of Jesus to provide food for himself miraculously:

“The act was thus not in itself wrong. But Jesus recognized in His hunger an experience designed by God to teach Him the lesson of Deuteronomy 8:3.  His mission was to be one of continual privation, for the sake of His ministry of the word of God; a concern for His own material comfort could only jeopardize it.  As Son of God, He must learn, as Israel failed to learn, to put first things first. And that must mean an unquestioning obedience to God’s plan.” (France, “Matthew”. Pp 98.)

Jesus, as 100% God and 100% man, lived a life of continual privation, denying himself comforts that were at His fingertips every second of His life.

Jesus’ response to the devil using Deuteronomy 8:3 should also show that He understood why this time of testing was necessary.  The previous verse in Deuteronomy tells us:  

“Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. (v.2)”

I find it hard to fathom that the humility of Jesus was in question, but God, clearly, has Jesus set up to demonstrate perfect obedience in the way His chosen people did not.  These connections are inescapable. Our Saviour was battle-tested from the start.

A Leap Of Faith?

Next, the Evil One took Jesus to the highest point in the temple of the holy city.  He continued challenging Jesus to prove his relationship with God The Father. This time though, having been scalded by scripture in his previous attempt, he tried this tactic himself.  Surely, Jesus could not argue with the word of God, right? He said: 

“If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down.  For it is written: He will command angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.  (Psa. 91:11,12)

Jesus answered him.  “It is written: “Do not put the Lord to the test.” (Deut 6:16)

So now we are in the middle of a Bible quote-off between Jesus and the devil.  Both know their scripture but only one has the goal of obedience to God. We know this because, well, one of these persons is the devil and he misuses God’s word nine times before breakfast.  Here, by Satan’s reasoning, Jesus should throw himself down because the angels of the Lord will certainly protect the Son of God. And this will prove who you are. Easy Peazy. But the Adversary gets the context of the passage in Psalm 91 purposely backwards.  The first two verses in the Psalm read:

“He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.  I will say of the Lord, ‘He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.’” (v.1,2)

But if Jesus were to throw himself down, whom or what would He be trusting in?  Certainly not God’s plan, right? He would be forcing God’s hand. Testing His word when the Son should be trusting it.  By understanding the scriptural landscape and trusting the Father’s plan, Jesus is succeeding in the way the Israelites failed.  In fact, Matthew draws these parallels between the failures of the early followers of God and the sufficiency of Jesus as a fulfillment of perfect obedience.  For this reason, Jesus references in his answer Deuteronomy 6:16 which itself looks back to Exodus 17 where the Israelite community quarreled with Moses for him to get God to give them water.  God finally instructed Moses to strike a rock to miraculously produce water. The ancient people of God TESTED the Lord saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” (Ex. 17:7)

The Evil One demonstrates how he wants the Son to not act in service to the Father, but act as if the Father serves the Son.  We, as children of God, repeat this type of theology when we obligate God to answer our questions about His plans for us or attempt to shame Him for His past undesirable (to our eye) deeds.  Satan seeks to confuse us by tampering with the order of things.  

If our God is the God of Abraham, then He resides as the ultimate authority and necessarily becomes the focus of our lives.  However, many people are tragically looking for a god that, first, agrees with them and, second, serves them.

The Kingdom Without The Cross

The devil, undeterred, now took him to the very high mountains and showed him all the kingdoms of the world.  These were kingdoms that over which Satan held dominion and contesting his dominion was the reason Jesus came to Earth.  So the devil wasn’t usurping any authority when he offered, “All this I will give to you, if you will bow down and worship me.” (v.9)

So here we have Jesus, with full knowledge of God’s plan, the trials, the humiliation, the extreme pain of crucifixion, with a way to avoid it all.  All He has to do is bow down before the Deceiver and worship him and He can have the kingdom without the pain and anguish of the Cross. This is how Jesus responded:

“Away from me Satan!  For it is written: Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.” (v.10)  

Similarly, Jesus responded to Peter’s denial of Jesus’ teaching His mission of the Cross in Matthew 16:22.  He said: 

“Get behind me Satan!  You are a stumbling block to me;  you do not have in mind the things of God, but things of men.”

The obvious connection here is that The Cross is Jesus’ unavoidable mission.  And if we are followers of Christ, It is our unavoidable mission as well. We mustn’t fall for these shortcuts introduced by our culture that seemingly get us there without the struggle, pain, or trials that are part of God’s plan.  If there is a reason that God tests us, it is so that we can be prepared ahead of time for the devil’s gambit. But this preparation first requires our obedience.

Eve of Destruction

Another connection with the Old Testament can be found in Genesis 3 where the Serpent tempts Eve.  Clearly, the Devil has employed the same ‘ol tricks from the very beginning. Below, I list Satan’s Genesis temptation with the Matthew 4 test.

  1. The Serpent tempted Eve with food. Although Scripture does not allude to hunger as motivation for Eve’s fall, it does describe the fruit as good (Gen. 3:6).  The Devil tempted a hungry Jesus with food.
  2. The Serpent told Eve she would not die from eating the food.  The Devil told Jesus that angels would save Him if He threw Himself down.
  3. The Serpent told Eve that eating from the tree would make her like God.  Eve wanted knowledge. The Devil told Jesus that if He bowed down and worshiped him, he would give Jesus the kingdom.  The very thing He came to earth to gain.

Well, we shall stop there for now.  Quite enough to think about if you ask me.  We will finish the chapter next time. May God bless you and keep you.

Sources:

France, RT. “Matthew”. Page 98.

Bruce, FF. “Understanding the New Testament: Matthew”. Pages 13-14.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ivp-nt/Gods-Son-Passes-Test.

All Scripture is the NIV Translation.

Notes on Matthew – Chapters 1 & 2

Each new year many believers vow to read the Bible cover to cover within the next 12 months. I have tried and failed this objective many times.  This year I want to try something different. I will study just a few books (starting with the Gospel of Matthew) of the Word instead of the whole book.  And I will STUDY instead just monotonously churn through words as I have done in years past. I will read commentaries, blog posts, opinions, histories, and textual criticism.  Pretty much anything about Matthew that I can get my hands on. So suggestions for study material would be appreciated.

I hope to periodically post notes and things I have learned from this endeavor.  I imagine some of it will be apologetics, some may be pastoral, and some maybe just asking questions for further study.  My hope in sharing is that someone else may be inspired to dig deeper into God’s Word. I have already benefited even in this short time.

So let’s begin.

Apologetics for the Jewish People

From the very beginning of Matthew’s Gospel, it is clear that the writer is forming a work of apologetics for the Jewish people, beginning with a genealogy that connects Abraham to Jesus Christ and then consistently noting where the happenings of Christ’s life reveal fulfillment of prophecy in the Jewish Scriptures.  

In just the first two chapters alone, we have five references to Jesus’ movements and presence fulfilling the words of the prophets.  In Matt 1:22-23, we have noted the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 with the instance of the virgin birth. Then Matt 2:5-6 shows that a ruler will come out of Judah, a reference to Micah 5:2.  Then in the span of the last eight verses of chapter two, we have three examples of completed prophecy with mentions of Hosea 11:1, Jeremiah 31:15, and a prophecy that is strangely unrecorded by the Old Testament Scriptures but listed internally as prophecy fulfillment in Matt 2:23.

There are many critics of Matthew’s habit of citing often vague and seemingly unrelated Old Testament scripture as fulfillment of prophecy.  The references do not come across as obvious or convincing in many instances. I invite you to Google the discussions for more detail. Scholar R.T. France, in his commentary “Matthew”, says the apostle applies these texts in subtle, seemingly forced and artificial ways.  But then he goes on to explain C. F. D. Moule’s observation that argues that “this ‘vehicular’ use of Scripture ‘is a symptom of discovery that, in a deeply organic way, Jesus was indeed a fulfiller of something which is basic in the whole of Scripture.’” France then goes on to say that:

 “what may seem to us an embarrassingly obscure and even irresponsible way of handling Scripture is in fact the outworking of a careful tracing of scriptural themes, which in different ways point to Jesus as the fulfiller not only of specific predictions, but also of the broader pattern of God’s Old Testament revelation.” (pp39-40)

So this topic is heading way beyond the scope of one of my blog posts.  A good item to shelve for further in depth study. There is tons more there.  I invite you to dig in.

Joseph’s POV?

More interesting to me is that much of the story here in the first two chapters seems to be from Jesus’ adopted father Joseph’s point of view.  Some scholars believe that Joseph may be an actual source for Matthew. But this just leads to more questions for me. When would Matthew have gotten Joseph’s testimony?  Would it have been from another source who knew him or is this direct testimony? The reason I ask is that it is my opinion that Joseph is no longer living by the time of the Crucifixion because of John’s Gospel observing mother Mary at the Cross in chapter 19, verse 25-27:

25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,[a] here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. (NIV)

So, in John, Mary is there with her sister, another Mary, wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdelene.  No Joseph. Now, we might think it is possible that Joseph was there but not mentioned until we see how the passage unfolds.  In the passage, Jesus notices his mother and arranges for the beloved disciple, John, to become her new son and she would be his new mother!  John is then to take her into his home “from that time on” (v.27). So many believe, including me, Joseph may have passed on by then. Nonetheless, it would seem odd if Jesus were to give his mother to the beloved disciple if His father, her husband, were still in the picture.

“Family” Matters

Note that Mary’s children are not by her side either in the passage from John.  Many believe that could be due to the family’s skepticism as reported in Mark 3:21-22: 

21 When his family[a] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” (NIV)

It’s interesting that in a parallel story later in Matthew (12:46-50) the writer doesn’t mention any worries by Jesus’ family of mental illness as it does in Mark.  This may be inline with Matthew’s attempt to minister to the Jews about fulfilled prophecy and the deity of Christ so this doesn’t fit neatly into his apologetic purposes.

It should be noted however that the word “family” there in Mark 3 probably does not include Mary and Joseph and his brothers.  We think this, in part, because later in verse 31 it describes these family members (Mary and Jesus’ brothers) arriving onto the scene and calling for him. In the NASB translation, the word “family” (from the NIV) is replaced with “his own people” and the RSV called them “friends”.  

Other explanations for the source of Joseph’s testimony, if not him directly, could be that this came to Matthew secondhand, maybe from James or Jude as told to them by Joseph or maybe from other brothers and sisters or family members post-Resurrection. My guess is it would have to be from someone with a personal familial connection to protect this information for so long.

“How long?” you may ask.  Well, the common dating of Matthew is around AD 80 (I personally think it’s earlier). If that were true, and Joseph died before AD 30 (to keep the numbers round), and it was true that Matthew 1-2 records his testimony of parts of the nativity story, Joseph’s side of things could have been kept by this relative or relatives for 50 years or more.  

Herod The Great?

Bible skeptics often bring up Matthew 2:13-18, “The Slaughter of the Innocents”, as a narrative invention of the Apostle Matthew, mostly due to the fact that contemporary historians, like Flavius Josephus, do not corroborate the story of the murder of all infant boys in Bethlehem and the surrounding areas.  To answer this challenge, I found an interview with ancient history expert Dr. Paul Maier, Russell Seibert Professor at Western Michigan University. Below, Dr. Maier first provides some insight into the notorious character of Herod The “Great” and then he answers the difficulty.

Interviewer:  Explain the paranoid side of Herod that begins to emerge later in his life.

Maier:  “Josephus gives us just a hideous tale of what was going on in the family, attempted poisonings, one brother against another. It so rattled Herod that he actually put to death three of his own sons on suspicion of treason. He put to death his favorite wife out of 10 of them. Mariamne was his favorite. She was a Hasmonean Macabean princess and he put her to death and then he killed his mother-in-law — I should say, one of his many mothers-in-law. He invited the high priest down to Jericho for a swim. They played a very rough game of water polo and they drowned him. He killed several uncles and a couple of cousins. Some have said he is a real family man, you know, in that negative respect.”

 (Continuing to document the cruel exploits of Herod . . .)

Maier:  “Well, Josephus has a very grisly thing to report about Herod in his last months. He was paranoid, though he did have some grasp of reality. For instance, he was worried that nobody would mourn his own death. Of course that shows how deadly accurate he was. They were preparing a general celebration. And nobody likes to die knowing that they are going to dance on your grave. And so he was going to give the people something to cry about.

In 4 BC he is in his winter palace in Jericho. It’s the only place in the holy land that doesn’t snow or get cold in the winter. It’s 1,200 feet below sea level. And Herod is dying. He tries every remedy in the world to stop the gang of diseases that were creeping up on him. He went to the hot springs on the northeastern corner of the Dead Sea. And that didn’t cure him.

So he goes back to his winter palace and he invites his sister Salome in and he says, “I want you to arrest all the Jewish leaders in the land and imprison them in the hippodrome just below the palace here.” And the hippodrome has been discovered archaeologically, by the way. And so she does so and then she says, “Brother, why am I doing this?” And Herod says, “Well, I know that when I die the Jews are going to rejoice. So I want to give them something to cry about.” And so he wants these leaders all executed in that hippodrome so that there will be thousands of households weeping at the time Herod the Great dies.”

Interviewer:  Speaking of Matthew 2, the Bible records this scene from Herod’s paranoia late in his life. The wise men alert him to the birth of a new king in Bethlehem. He wants to know where, so he can eradicate this new rival. The wise men wisely don’t return. Herod then responds by slaughtering all boys two-years-old and under in Bethlehem and in “all the region.” For all that Josephus writes about Herod, he makes no mention of this — in fact, there’s no extra-biblical evidence that this slaughter ever happened. How do you respond?

Maier:  “No, it is interesting. Josephus does not mention it. And therefore a lot of biblical critics will pounce on that aspect of the nativity account and say therefore it didn’t happen. Now please understand this is an argument from silence and that is the weakest form of argumentation you can use. As we say in the profession, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In this case one or two things could have happened. Josephus may have heard about it and not used it because you don’t have hundreds of babies killed or you have only about 12, as a matter of fact, 12 or 15. The infant mortality in the ancient world was so huge anyway that this is really not going to impress the reader too much, believe it or not. And I think if Josephus is choosing between the two stories about how Herod died right before his death, I think I would take the one where he is going to slaughter hundreds of Jewish leaders.

Or he may not have heard about it. Again, simply because in little Bethlehem it doesn’t amount to much — a village of about 1,500 residents. In my actuarial study, Bethlehem at the time wouldn’t have had more than about two dozen babies two years old and under — half of them female. And so this is not a big deal, and I think that is why Josephus either never heard about it or didn’t feel it important enough to record. So this does not militate against Matthew’s version by any means.”

This concludes are my study so far. Continuing to chapters 3 & 4 next time.  God Bless.

Sources:

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/truth-or-fiction-did-herod-really-slaughter-baby-boys-in-bethlehem

“Matthew”.  R.T. France.  TTNTC. pp39-40, 81-85.

Earthly Authorities

close up court courthouse hammer

1 Peter 2:13-17 New International Version (NIV)

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves.17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

I often wondered why God tells us so much to obey the local authorities. I can find at least four more instances, in addition to 1 Peter above, in Scripture, where we are instructed to respect those in authority over us or those who treat us harshly. Two times from Paul in Ephesians 6:5-9 and Colossians 3:22-25. And a couple times by Jesus in Matthew 5:46 and Luke 6:32-36. To be clear, God never asks us to violate our consciences.

In Acts 5:29, we are implored that “we must obey God rather than men”. But legal authorities and other people in powerful positions, He wants us to love and treat kindly despite persecution.
But how are we doing this “for the Lord’s sake” (v. 13):

  1. He benefits somehow from our obedience?
  2. Or do we benefit?
  3. Does the church?

Does God benefit from our obedience to earthly laws?

Well, God doesn’t benefit from any of our actions because He is immutable, unchanging. Nothing can be added or subtracted to or from Him. We can find Old Testament and New Testament passages to support this:

“They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end” (Psalm 102:26-27).
“I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed” (Malachi 3:6).
“Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17).
“He also says, ‘In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end’” (Hebrews 1:10-12).

So the first option is quickly out.

Does our response to earthly laws benefit us?

I think that it can be found throughout the Bible that our obedience benefits us. In the sense that such actions help us mature spiritually. It calibrates our objectives, our goals. We become more godly as we do as Christ did, carrying our respective crosses imperfectly, but carrying them nonetheless. In this exposure to people who treat us harshly or immorally, without provocation, grace and forgiveness must become a habit.
If we consistently render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, or become more heavenly-minded, this is a good thing. A tremendous thing. The more we act on the truth that this world is not our home, the better. But this cannot be something we do “for the Lord’s sake”.

Does our response to earthly authorities benefit the Church?

Yes. I believe it benefits the Church (capital C) by moving along our Good Good Father’s plan for His followers to be Christ-like and attractive to those who do not believe. Our behavior “controls the narrative”, to use modern political phrasing. If we are obedient to the government, like Nero, in the time of Paul and Peter, obedient to rulers, bosses, authorities of man, what can be negatively said of us by unbelievers? Certainly nothing about our behavior, right?

They must deal with our beliefs if we do not give them more reason or justification to silence us for something else. In verse 15 of 1 Peter 2, it says “For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.” So controlling the narrative within our culture. In other words, if we are to be persecuted, let it be for our behavior in Christ, not deeds done in anger or fear or sin. One verse later, verse 16 challenges us to “Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.”
To cite a recent hot button topic, the media or political commentators will bring up attacks on abortion providers, like bombings. These horrible events, committed by extremists, only served to move the narrative from the issue, the dismantling of life within the womb, and place it firmly on the terribly misguided beliefs of the perpetrators, which were then painted as mainstream Christian beliefs. Pro-Life protesters, going forward, could not “silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.”

So the movement suffers and children, sadly, continue to die at the hands of people who know better. The truth was hurt by folks, sympathetic to the cause, acting in evil.

Be Obedient, Like Christ

So obeying the authorities puts the believer on Christ’s path. He committed no crimes. Not against Roman law nor the Law of the Torah. Anything bad said about Him were lies. And His executioners knew it. The goodness of Jesus convicted the world. So must our goodness shine a light on a better way. The only Lord that saves.
May this, increasingly, become our calling.
God bless.
Sources:
https://www.allaboutgod.com/god-is-immutable-faq.htm

Are Christians Atheists Too?

download
Are Christians Atheists Too?
Wandering the raucous hallways of a facebook apologetics forum the other day and ran across an unbeliever who loved the “I just believe in one less God than you” argument. I mean really loved it. Moving up and down the threads, I saw him employ it numerous times in seemingly one sitting. But what’s the appeal really?
I suppose people may think it’s a winning argument because it attempts to convict the believer of the same irrationality of which we accuse the unbeliever: Certain gods do not exist. And if we, indeed, make the claim that these other gods do not exist, we are then guilty of doing the same thing as atheists do, though not really atheism. In such a case, we would be making a positive knowledge claim [the non-existence of god(s)] that we cannot support observationally. So I would like to advise that we cease doing so, if this is the case, but I’ll get to that later.
The atheist argument follows that the believer denies the existence of all other gods except the God of their own personal choice, presumably the God of the Bible. So we, as believers, assume our own atheism [non-existence of god(s)] or their silly “lack of belief” stance on atheism, regarding Thor and Zeus and Krishna and the like. The popular statement of this position is worded as such by atheist Stephen F. Roberts:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace has a tidy answer prepared for those who hold this position:

In every criminal trial, a jury is asked to evaluate the actions of one defendant related to a particular crime. While there are millions of other people in the world who could have committed the crime under consideration (and indeed, millions of these people were actually available to commit the crime), only one has been charged. If the jury becomes convinced this defendant is the perpetrator, they will convict him based on their beliefs. They will convict the accused even though they haven’t examined the actions (or nature) of millions of other potential suspects. They’ll render a verdict based on the evidence related to this defendant, in spite of the fact they may be ignorant of the history or actions of several million alternatives. If the evidence is persuasive, the jurors will become true believers in the guilt of this man or woman, even as they reject millions of other options . . .At the end of a trial, juries are “unbelievers” when it comes to every other potential suspect, because the evidence confirming the guilt of their particular defendant was sufficient. In a similar way, we can be confident “unbelievers” when it comes to every other potential god because the evidence for Christianity is more than sufficient.”

Wallace’s response deals with our ability to judge rationally which gods exist evidentially through argument and reason. The existence of alternative “gods” do not logically hinder our ability to find one true One or render the existence of one true God irrational. That’s Wallace’s argument. But I want to deal with the first part of Roberts’ claim.

I CONTEND THAT WE ARE BOTH ATHEISTS . . .
Atheist Stephen F. Roberts’ argument, well, maybe more of an assertion, is that atheists and theists, if they do reject other gods, do so for the same reasons. This is untrue. Theists reject other gods because of what they know. Atheists, reportedly, reject other gods because of what they don’t know (lack of belief).
See, not too long ago, unbelievers adopted a new definition for atheism. Most of them categorically reject the definition of atheism found in the “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” which calls atheism:

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

They have replaced the definition above with what we will call a “lack of belief”. This position, if they would even agree to call it one, conveniently makes no knowledge claims. This is the upside for the god-denier. No propositions to defend. This “lack of belief” holds that theism must do the heavy lifting to convince them of our claim, since they have made none. The downside of this tactic is that atheism now lacks, among other things, explanatory power. A “lack of belief” only describes a personal deficiency and not reality. Atheism, as such, ceases to have cultural relevance as defined here, since non-beliefs cannot motivate or comment on or improve anything.

ANATOMY OF A TRAP
So Roberts’ argument now becomes a trap, volleying the adherent between two definitions. The unbeliever must admit that they reject gods because of a personal deficiency, rendering the position impotent, or they must make a positive claim that NO gods exist, a knowledge claim that they cannot support with evidence. They can’t really do both, can they?
While theism, Christianity in particular, continually seeks to explain the universe through reason, science, history, and philosophy, atheism reverts to “feels” and spiraling nihilism.

BUT ARE WE ATHEISTS TOO?
But are we atheists too? Well, God never makes these claims. In fact, He acknowledges other “gods” quite boldly in scripture:

“For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.” Deut 10:17.
“Give thanks to the God of gods, for his steadfast love endures forever.” Psalm 136:2.
“For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods.” Psalm 95:3.
“For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on *all the gods of Egypt* I will execute judgments: I am the LORD.” Exodus 12:12.
“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:” Psalm 82:1.
“For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” 1 Cor 8:5-6.

And an article by Elizabeth Sloane from www.haaretz.com, an online edition of the Haaretz Newspaper in Israel reasons:

Early Judaism did not deny the existence of other gods. The Biblical story of Exodus categorically acknowledges and affirms the existence of other gods. It paints the plagues of Egypt not just as war on the pharaoh, but as a war on the gods of Egypt: “Against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments” (Ex. 12.12).”

Some may counter with examples of many other passages in scripture that seem to directly contradict the verses above. But what are they saying when they use the word “god” or “gods”. These are man-made idols. These are creations of creation, not of our Good Good Father. None of these stand in opposition to the God of the Bible on their own. They exist but not as the One True God who is worthy of worship, but as idols. False gods. Unholy machinations of our fallen nature.
So, no. We are not “both atheists”. We do not fall into contradiction claiming things we cannot determine through reason and evidence, like the non-existence of false deities. We continue to be able to explain reality by appealing to what best fits the evidence and not revert to a weak position of “lack of belief”.
God Bless.
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/do-atheists-believe-in-just-one-less-god-than-christians/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-what-if-god-didn-t-really-care-if-we-worship-other-gods-1.5459638

Comforting The Sufferers

 

window church crucifixion church window
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

2 Corinthians 1:3-7 New International Version (NIV):

3 “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. 5 For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ. 6 If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. 7 And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort.”

 

Does the Bible verse above describe how you usually respond to suffering?  I bet not. At best, my response to suffering results in my pulling away quietly from reality, hedging myself in with sports or books or movies, so I don’t have to deal.  Denial. At worst, I lash out at people who are not the cause of my trial.

The verse above probably best describes how I respond to other people’s suffering.  “Don’t worry about it.  It’ll pass. You’ll be stronger for this.”  As I type I notice that what I say isn’t false, it’s true, but most often I tend to refer to truth when I don’t need to be the one to live it.

Opportunity for Unbelievers

So often we hear atheists snicker about the existence of a loving God who has a suffering people.  To them, this is incoherent. If God is all-powerful and He loves you, why do you suffer, they ask.  They use these instances to play on our propensity to avoid the problem. That we may act on the call of our hearts to lash out, instead of reach out.

But when you consider atheism, you should know that this is, in fact, the incoherent worldview.  Atheism does not provide answers to the problem of evil; it just eliminates it as a problem.

If this is a God-less existence, what is suffering?  See, suffering can only be seen as bad or wrong or something that ought not happen if we have an understanding of what ought to be.  Atheism, if true, eliminates oughts.  

An ought-less world is one in which what happens just happens.  It’s a world of chocolate or vanilla choices and chocolate or vanilla results.  Nothing is good or bad. Things are just different, but equal in value, like the choice between chocolate or vanilla ice cream.  After all, who’s to say that one flavor is better than the other? What proof can we submit to decide? (Hint: It’s chocolate. Or is it?)  An existence without a standard of what ought to happen reduces life to these kind of choices.

Thus, every complaint or displeasure can only describe the condition of the complainer and says nothing truthful of the deed done or object of the complaint.  So, as such, the unbeliever lacks the ability to describe or explain reality. Truth exists within only their personal whims and not as something that exists apart from them.  For example, displeasure of being punched in the nose only describes the way the punched individual feels about the event and not the potential wrongness of the act itself against them.  But nobody really lives this way. That’s the incoherence of atheism.

So when unbelievers try to play us against God because of our sufferings, they entirely miss the point.

God’s Plan for Suffering

The point of suffering according to the text above is to establish God as the “Father of compassion” and the “God of comfort”.  Notice 2 Corinthians 1: 3-7 doesn’t tell us that troubles won’t occur. People of God were never promised a trouble-free life. These are the heretical rantings of false prophets and prosperity gospel preachers.  It says we will be comforted in our troubles. (v.4) This comfort is found in the Cross.

When reading this verse, it is important to understand that this letter is written by Paul on behalf of himself and his traveling companion Timothy to the church in Corinth.  So when he uses the words “we” and “our”, in some cases, he is referring to himself and Timothy. “You” and “your” is referencing the church in Corinth. In other cases, these words refer to Paul, Timothy, and the church all together as believers.

So not only does God comfort us (everyone) in our troubles through the saving work of Christ, we are to use this truth to comfort others.  Paul achieves this by acknowledgement God’s well-known sustaining acts within Paul’s life. The afflictions of persecution, imprisonment, threats of death, anxieties and impoverishment, for those, God has provided a peace for Paul and in turn, he passes on comfort to those also in trouble.  “If we (Paul and Timothy) are distressed, it is for your (Corinth) comfort and salvation; if we (Paul and Timothy) are comforted, it is for your (Corinth) comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we (Paul and Timothy) suffer.” (v.6)

So it is easy enough to understand the afflictions for which Paul has received comfort.  But what form did this comfort take for Paul? Bible commentator Colin G. Kruse describes Paul’s deliverance from his affliction, like deadly peril, as one of the ways that God provided comfort for him.  He also details relief from anxieties that Paul experienced when Titus joined him in Macedonia. It, however, is clear that he was never exempt from persecution and trial because of God providing comfort.  Kruse also offers that “up to the time of writing God has delivered Paul out of all his afflictions in the sense that none of them had proved fatal” (p.61, TTNTC)

Now, why should troubles occur in the first place?  Again, what is the point?

The answer has much to do with our sin.  Clay Jones, in his terrific book “Why Does God Allow Evil”, gives a short answer:

“God could not simply excuse Adam and Eve’s sin because the lesson to free beings would then be ‘Sin is okay, God will overlook it.’ But to demonstrate His love for us and to atone for the grave seriousness of sin, God sent His only Son, Jesus, to die for rebellious humans.  Now, we humans who trust God and accept Jesus’ death on the cross of our sins learn the horror of rebellion through experiencing rebellion’s devastating results. We are also learning to overcome evil with good. This knowledge prepares us to be fit inheritors of God’s kingdom, where– because we are learning the horror and stupidity of sin here on earth– we will be able to use our free will rightly as we reign with Jesus forever and ever.” (p.208)

Know that much of the quote above deserves further explanation and that is what Jones’ informative book provides.

So according to Jones, God has a reason for our suffering.  He has a plan the eventually leads us to being in His presence “forever and ever”.  We play a part in this as believers. We comfort those who suffer because we have found comfort in the finished work of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

May you personally find this kind of comfort in your life.

God Bless.

 

Source:  The Tyndale New Testament Commentary of 2 Corinthians by Colin G. Kruse (p. 61, TTNTC)

Standing On Our Christian Convictions

Penn2

Came across this quote today on facebook.  I had seen it before. But something was different about it today.  Now, likely nothing was actually different about it. More likely, something was different about me.  Ever have that? You see things day in, day out but you never really notice them. Or you notice them differently now than you did then?  That’s the way this quote worked on me today.

The person who posted this wondered aloud if Penn Jillette was softening is views on the existence of God.  Penn, a vocal atheist, hasn’t, to my knowledge, announced or renounced anything. And my thoughts about this quote do not really deal with his non-belief, but, in fact, our belief.

See, he seems to understand our purpose as Christians better than we do (sometimes).  And I have never said that about an atheist before now. Normally, atheists and agnostics get just about everything regarding our faith wrong.  Most of the time, they even get the definition of Christian faith wrong from the start. But here, he asks, “How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize?”  He sees that the believer’s act of delivering the Good News as an urgent God-directed mission of love, as we should. But do we really?

Penn offers that we may fear an awkwardness in our relationship with others if our actions are somehow rebuffed.  From his perspective, he just doesn’t believe that it’s real. His personal conviction is that God isn’t real, so this isn’t something of value.

But to believers, it must be real.  After all, this is our worldview. Our conviction is that God stepped down from His throne, into time, in the human form of His Son, Jesus Christ.  This God-Man then, in order to rescue those who love Him, sacrificed Himself to pay for their sins, while they were still sinners. He atoned for their (our) rotten deeds in a way that the Old Testament sacrifices could not.  With the blood of a perfect sacrifice. Our conviction is that Grace prevailed over our depraved nature and those who love God are now new creations. And our Lord has entrusted with us this message to the world.

So if these are our convictions, “How much do you have to hate somebody not to proselytize?”  Maybe it’s not hate, maybe it’s fear.  Or worse, maybe, we simply lack conviction. Because if we believe that the Cross that took the life of our Savior is the only way that the world can gain eternal life, for what reasons are we keeping this to ourselves?

Friends, if it is a lack of conviction, there are ways to know that what we believe is true.  There is information that we can attain that answers our reasonable doubts. We have the goods.  We can be bold in our actions. We need not be defensive or harsh. We need not shrink from challenges to our faith.  You can also pray for help with your unbelief or for God to continue His work in you, a maturing of your spirit.

Or maybe it is that we aren’t sure of our own salvation?  Could that be? But, as believers, we know that the greatest commandment tells us to love God and love each other.  So when we evangelize, when we share the Gospel, in doing so, we assure ourselves of the genuineness of our faith every time because, how much must we have to love somebody (God) to trust His Word and put it into action despite relentless chirping of a contrary culture that worships idols of comfort and greed? In addition, how much must we have to love somebody (others) to risk our relationship with them and tell them the truth that:  God is real, the Cross is real, and the Resurrection is true.

May we show love that changes lives.  And if for some reason we don’t, may we seek to change that about ourselves, God helping us.

God bless.