Messiah Joshua of Nazareth

Time to get real about the English name J-E-S-U-S.

συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν

Luke 1:31

Simply put, the name “Jesus” is an artificial construction developed from a Greek-to-Latin-to-English transliteration¹ of the Hebrew name we write as “Joshua” (Yĕhowshuwa` [יְהוֹשׁוּעַ]). There is no such name as “Jesus” in any language of the Old or New Testament. “Yeshua”, what Messianic Jews commonly call Jesus, is a transliteration of the later, shortened form of Joshua (Yeshuwa` [יֵשׁוּעַ]), but the actual English pronunciation of His name is “Joshua”.

Here’s how Wikipedia puts it:

"Jesus" is the English of the Greek transliteration of "Yehoshua" via Latin. In the Septuagint , all instances of the word "Yehoshua" are rendered as "Ἰησοῦς" (Iēsoūs), the closest Greek pronunciation of the Aramaic "Yeshua" (Hebrew word #3443 in Strong's, Nehemiah 8:17).[9][10] Thus in Greek Joshua is called "Jesus son of Naue" (τοῦ Ναυή) to differentiate him from Jesus Christ. This is also true in the Slavic languages following the Eastern Orthodox tradition (e.g. "Иисус Навин" (Iisús Navín) in Russian).

Now let’s take a look at how this name is treated in our English Bibles:

The epigraph from the Gospel of Luke above is written in Koine Greek, the language in which most of the books of the New Testament were originally penned.² The word in red is a conjugated form of Iēsous [Ἰησοῦς], the name translated “Jesus”. In the New King James Version of the Bible, this reads:

you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS.³

Now let's go to the first part of the Greek version of Acts 7:45:

ἣν καὶ εἰσήγαγον διαδεξάμενοι οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῇ κατασχέσει τῶν ἐθνῶν

Again, the word in red is a conjugated form of Iēsous, but this time, the NKJV translates it as “Joshua”—which isn’t a mistake, since it is clear from the context of the verse that Joshua, the son of Nun and successor of Moses, is meant. The NIV, the ESV and the RSV all translate the name Iēsous in this verse as “Joshua” and in Luke 1:31 as “Jesus”. Even the Spanish RVR gives us Josué (Joshua) in Acts 7:45, but JESÚS (in all-caps!) in Luke 1:31.

Tellingly, the KJV gives us “Jesus” for both—with all-caps only in Luke—which, although it is at least consistent, does still continue the practice of favouring the more artificial Latinate name over the correct English one.

The reason this use of two different names is a problem for us is because it not only perpetuates the early de-Judaizing of the Church by Constantine by turning the Messiah into a Gentile; it also breaks the correspondence between the two Joshuas: The faithful Joshua of Exodus leading God’s people into the Promised Land, rather than Moses (who represents the Law), is a shadow (Col 2:17, Heb 8:5; 10:1), a living picture, of Joshua the Christ leading believers into the spiritual Kingdom through His righteousness, not their ritual.

To our hurt, this vital doctrinal relationship between the OT and the NT has been entirely obscured by our not calling the Saviour by the same name as the successor of Moses: Joshua. It’s time we gave up our superstitious adoration of a false name—and all the apostasy that was brought in with it—and ejected this ancient error…in the name of Messiah Joshua of Nazareth.











Footnotes:

1. To transliterate a word means to take it from one language and represent the form and/or sound of it, not the meaning, in the corresponding characters of another alphabet or language (E.g. the Hebrew שַׁבָּת is transliterated into Greek as σάββατον and into English as “Shabbat”).

2. There is evidence, compelling in my opinion, but still controversial amongst scholars, that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew. See also, Nehemia Gordon’s The Hebrew Yeshua vs. The Greek Jesus.

3. The NKJV's use of all-caps here preserves the KJV translators’ English rendering of the Nomina Sacra found in many Greek manuscripts.

John 3.16 Revisited Again

The most well-known and popular verse in the NT is also the most misunderstood and misapplied.

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

John 3:16

I have learned that the mushy Gospel of our Gentle-Jesus-Meek-&-Mild-church is a thick and insidious bog, a morass of lies, that feels like a warm, comfortable bath to everyone immersed in it. I've learned too that the way to pull someone out of it is to get them to see that they are actually floating around dreamily in a swamp. To this end, I’ve spoken to every professed believer I run into, and written at length, on the mistaken notions modern Christianity holds about the Gospel¹ and, especially, the love of God. As expected, I have met with mixed results.

The largest obstacle preventing the believer from seeing the swamp they’re in is their mistaken belief that John 3:16 means God unconditionally loves every single human being that has or will ever exist. As long as they cling to that rotting log of false doctrine, they’ll never get back on to solid ground again.

Of course, many will continue clinging to that log as long as the pastors and teachers of the denominations continue to fling it out to them—while continuing to overfill the swamp—which is why it was good to come across this video of a one-time log-flinger finally seeing the light:



Good on you, Colonel Sanders!

Now, don’t get me wrong; in no way does my sharing this video mean that am I agreeing with everything Mr. Pawson is saying in it. I agree with his statements regarding the misunderstanding and misapplication of John 3:16 at the beginning, and I especially agree with what he says about the word “so”, but most of what he says afterwards about God's love is, quite frankly, just as unscriptural as the misunderstandings surrounding John 3:16 that he's decrying.

All that being said, though, it’s still a happy surprise to hear a highly esteemed Bible teacher like David Pawson going to such lengths to wake people up to the corrupted doctrine nearly every Christian has been taught about the most beloved verse in the Bible.


Hmmm. Thinking about it now, maybe I should fisk this video in a future blog. Might be a nice teaching exercise….









Footnotes:

1. Forget all the extraneous garbage the denominations have added to it; the true Gospel of Christ, the victorious report of Messiah's victory over death, is simple: I Cor 15:1-4. Messiah died for our sins, was buried, and rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures (the TaNaKh).

The Sword of the Lord

Like the leaven of the Pharisees, the sword of Luke 22:36 was figurative.

εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς, Ἀλλὰ νῦν ὁ ἔχων βαλάντιον ἀράτω ὁμοίως καὶ πήραν, καὶ ὁ μὴ ἔχων πωλησάτω τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀγορασάτω μάχαιραν.

Luke 22:36

Last March, I argued against Christians joining the military in a long post called A Good Soldier of Jesus Christ. There was one statement I made in that blog that I’ve been meaning to reexamine because, since making it, I’ve come across some compelling arguments to the contrary. The point wasn’t critical to my central argument, but it did concern Biblical interpretation, so, if there’s any chance that I was wrong, I wanted to find out and set the record straight.

Well, I’ve done the requisite analysis and I’m now fully convinced that I was indeed wrong. And today’s blog post is the record being set straight.

The statement I made was about the sword mentioned in Luke 22:36. Here are verses 35-36 from the KJV:

³⁵And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. ³⁶Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Now here’s the incorrect statement I made then:

As well, it is disingenuous to suggest that the sword is figurative. After all, no one thinks the “purse” and “scrip” of the same verse are figurative, so why would the “sword” be? The purpose for the sword might be figurative, but a real sword is clearly meant.

I now believe that both the sword and its purpose are figurative—and so are the purse and scrip, for that matter.

The first thing that indicates that the sword is figurative is the Lord’s response to the disciples in verse 38:

And they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

The Greek word that Jesus uses for “enough” is ἱκανός [hikanos]. This word does mean “sufficient” or “enough”, but, as we see in the following screenshot from Thayer’s Lexicon, the phrase “it is enough” was a Hebrew idiom that one said when “a companion uttered anything absurd”. Jesus used it to “break off the conversation” because the disciples weren’t able to understand the deeper meaning of His words.

Regarding this idiom, Peter Misselbrook, in his Greek New Testament Notes on Luke 22:36 (scroll down to Week 8), paraphrases Howard Marshall's Commentary on the Gospel of Luke:

Marshall says that the meaning is “That's enough (of this conversation)” and that it is meant as a rebuke. Jesus gives up on any further attempt to get through the misunderstandings of the disciples who, this side of Pentecost, seem to have no real understanding of the nature of his kingdom.

If you think about it, the phrase “it is enough” has to be idiomatic, because the disciples only showed the Lord two swords. He had just finished saying that any disciple who didn’t have a sword should get one, and there were more than two disciples, therefore two swords would have been decidedly not enough; which is what Jesus would’ve said if He had actually meant for them to literally sell their garments and buy real swords.

Misselbrook also thinks that the sword is figurative and again goes to Marshall’s commentary:

The saying brings out the extreme plight of the disciples. A garment for wear at night was an utter necessity: to give it up for a sword implies that dire circumstances are at hand...the saying is a call to be ready for hardship and self-sacrifice.

The command to get purse, scrip and sword is about the disciples provisioning themselves, but not literally. It is about them provisioning themselves as spiritual shepherds. Yes, the sword is for defensive purposes, but it is for a spiritual shepherd to defend the spiritual sheepfold against a spiritual enemy. The disciples are the spiritual shepherds; believers, the church, are the spiritual sheepfold (cf John 10:11 & Eph 5:25); false teachers, like the Pharisees, are the wolves; and the Word of God is the spiritual sword (Eph 6:17).

As we see in the parallel verses of Matthew and Mark (Matt 26:31; Mark 14:27), Jesus was telling the disciples that the shepherd (Him) was to be struck and the sheep (believers) scattered; a fulfillment of the prophesy of Zechariah 13:7.

Awake, O sword¹, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

However, the 11 disciples were only going to be the scattered sheep for a short time. Later, after they were converted—as the Lord put it to Peter a few verses before (Luke 22:32), speaking about their receiving the Holy Spirit after His resurrection (John 20:21-23)—they were to become the shepherds and feed the sheep² (see John 21:15-17).

We get a hint of this differentiation between these disciples and the Lord’s other followers earlier, in Luke 9:1-6, when He sends them out first on what is sometimes called the “Lesser Commission”—the event the Lord is referring to when He asks them if they “lacked anything”. He then sends 70 others out at the beginning of Chapter 10. These 70 others He calls “lambs among wolves” (v.3) and “babes” (v.21). Lambs are baby believers and, again, wolves are false teachers.

As for protecting the sheep, in the 1^st Century, shepherds defended their flocks against wolves (and thieves) with swords and staves (called “rods” elsewhere in the NT).

The Greek word for staff is ῥάβδος [rabdos]. As well as a walking-stick and weapon, the staff was used to keep the sheep in line. As we see in Rev 19:15, the Lord will rule with a rabdos of iron. The Greek word translated “rule” is ποιμαίνω [poimainō]. It means to shepherd, protect and care for, a flock of sheep. The noun form of this word is ποιμήν [poimēn], the Greek word for shepherd.

In John 4:32-34, the Lord, speaking about doing the will of the Father, tells the disciples that He has food that they know nothing about. They wondered who gave Him something to eat. In Matthew 16:6-12, He warns them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. They thought He was talking about bread. In the same way, in Luke 22:36-38, when the Lord tells them to provision themselves and buy swords, the disciples, missing the deeper, figurative meaning of His words, immediately pulled out a couple of swords and waited for the pat on the back.

It never came.









Footnotes:

1. This sword is not the same sword. This sword is the wicked of the world, as defined by David in Psalm 17:13. As well, the hand He will “turn upon the little ones” is defined as (ungodly) “men” in the next verse, Psalm 17:14.

2. Christians feed on the Word, the Law of God. The Greek word for law is νόμος, nomos, which comes from a word that means “to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals”.

There is More to Repenting than Regret

According to the KJV, Judas repented. So much for the KJV being the Word of God.

Τότε ἰδὼν Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν ὅτι κατεκρίθη μεταμεληθεὶς, ἀπέστρεψεν τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις.

Matthew 27:3

The blog has been silent for a couple of weeks now because Sandy and I have left Fairbanks, Alaska, and are now busy setting up our home in Tauranga, Aotearoa¹. For me this means finding a new job in a new town; which is proving somewhat difficult. As a lot of you know, this is not the best time to be looking for work.

Naturally, what I’ll end up doing is whatever God wants me to end up doing. I’d like to get a job teaching the Bible—it’s the only thing I really enjoy doing—but for that reason alone, I think God will have me doing something else entirely. Our lives in this world are not meant to be smooth, comfy and fun. So, if I want to teach—and I do—then I’ll either have to find a Church where I can teach, or else set up a home Bible study.

Once I set up a home, of course.

Oh, well, at least I can satisfy my urge to teach a wee bit with these blog posts. God bless the Internet!

This is from a fascinating old book I found online called The Four Gospels translated from the Greek with Preliminary Dissertations and Notes Critical and Explanatory, by George Campbell:

I shall now offer a few remarks on two words that are uniformly rendered, by the same English word, in the common version², between which there appears notwithstanding, to be a real difference in signification. The words are μετανοεω (metanoeo)³ and μεταμελομαι (metamelomai)³, I repent. It has been observed by some, and, I think, with reason, that the former denotes properly, a change to the better; the latter, barely a change, whether it be to the better or to the worse; that the former marks a change of mind that is durable and productive of consequences; the latter expresses only a present uneasy feeling of regret or sorrow for what is done, without regard either to duration or to effects; in fine, that the first may properly be translated into English, I reform; the second, I repent, in the familiar acceptation of the word.

To clarify a bit, there are two different Greek words translated “to repent” in the KJV: metanoeō (μετανοέω) and metamelomai (μεταμέλομαι). The first one denotes a turning from sin leading to a positive change of character and is better understood as “to reform”; the second simply expresses a feeling of regret but does not indicate any change of character, which comes closer to the mechanical sense of “to repent”—a turning away from one’s sin—but not the full spiritual sense of repentance leading to regret, repudiation and reformation.

Ah, the KJV translators and their synonyms—we’ve been down this unhappy road before. Just like the results of pistis being translated “faith” and “belief”, or eklektos written “chosen” and “elect”, how has the doctrine of Christ been distorted because single Greek words that form the basis of important theological concepts have been rendered by two or more English words in the King James Bible? Now we have two distinctly different Greek words being translated into a single, theologically important English word: repent.

The full differences between the two words for repent is understood by looking at their lexical meanings and, what is just as important, examining their usage in Scripture.

Metanoeō is made up of the root words for “after” and “mind”. Combined, the sense is “to change ones mind afterwards”. Metamelomai is made up of the root words for “after” and “care”; the combined sense being “to care about something afterwards”. The former indicates an actual change of the state of one’s mind with regards to an action; the latter, a change of the feelings towards an action.

We only need to look at this one example of how these two words are used in the NT in order to put their doctrinal differences into perspective: Whenever we are ordered to repent in the NT, the word metanoeō is used; never metamelomai.

Now let’s take a look at Matthew 27:3-5 from the KJV:

³Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, ⁴Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What [is that] to us? see thou [to that]. ⁵And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

What we have here is Judas repenting then, two verses later, hanging himself, which presents a bit of a theological conundrum, because the clear message of the Scriptures is that if we repent and believe, we will be forgiven and saved (Matt 9:13; Luke 8:12, 13:3, 17:4; Acts 2:37-38, 3:19, et al). Here, Judas clearly believes, since he called the Lord “the innocent blood” and he repents. Yet Jesus Himself tells us that Judas, the “son of perdition”, was lost in John 17:12.

This has puzzled many in the past and still leaves an opening for idiotic speculation today—see here and here—but once we look at verse 3 in the Greek, the conundrum is quickly solved.

Τότε ἰδὼν Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν ὅτι κατεκρίθη μεταμεληθεὶς, ἀπέστρεψεν τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις.

As you probably guessed already, the word in red is the word metamelomai, not metanoeō.

So, as we see from the original Greek text, Judas merely had a change of feeling regarding his sin; he regretted what he’d done. He did not, however, have a change of mind (a change of “heart”—see this blog post), a reformation of his character from seeing the sinfulness of his actions.

Yep. I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again: Beware of English-only Bible studies!









Footnotes:

1. This is the Maori name for New Zealand. It means “Land of the Long White Cloud”.

2. This means the King James Bible—also commonly referred to as the Authorized Version (AV).

3. Transliterations of the Greek have been added; they were not in the original.

In the Pink

If you’re at all shaky on the whole idea of the sovereignty of God, let Arthur W. Pink set you straight.

A.W. Pink

ἐν αὐτῷ ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ· εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς εἰς ἔπαινον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ.

Ephesians 1:11-12

I didn’t really start to understand the Bible until about two years ago when I became convinced of three fundamental (and increasingly unpopular) doctrinal truths related to God’s sovereignty: God has predestinated those who will believe in Jesus; these Believers are God’s Chosen Elect; and God does NOT love everybody.

Upon first hearing a reasonable and compelling explanation of these three truths,¹ I was only partially convinced they were true, but after deciding to read the New Testament over the next few days as though they were true, I never looked back. From that moment on, everything I read in the Bible just made way more sense.

Anyway, the only reason I mention that is because ever since then I’ve been something of a heresy-hunter; and there’s been no shortage of game. Even though these truths were historically very strongly held in most non-Presbyterian denominations, almost no one preaches them today (and those, like the Calvinists, that do, don't teach them correctly). So it’s always a pleasant surprise to come across a Christian preacher who does. It’s a particular pleasure when he can present them artfully in a few choice sentences. Of course, because of the aforementioned lack of mainline subscribers to these truths, most of these “eloquent Sovereignists” are dead and buried. One such man is Arthur W. Pink.

I found the following Pink quote, A Great Deception, posted on the Providence Baptist Ministries website.

One of the most popular beliefs of the day is that God loves everybody, and the very fact that it is so popular with all classes ought to be enough to arouse the suspicions of those who are subject to the Word of Truth. God's love towards all His creatures is the favorite tenet of Universalists, Unitarians, Theosophists, Christian Scientists, Spiritualists, Russellites, etc. . . . So widely has this dogma been proclaimed, and so comforting it is to the heart which is at enmity with God, we have little hope of convincing many of their error.

To tell the Christ-rejecter that God loves him is to cauterize his conscience as well as to afford him a sense of security in his sins. The fact is, the love of God is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs.

As for Predestination and Election, Pink refers to them while discussing 2 Thessalonians 2:13, in a short excerpt entitled Chosen to Salvation:

There are three things here which deserve special attention. First, the fact that we are expressly told that God's elect are "chosen to salvation". Language could not be more explicit. How summarily do these words dispose of the sophistries and equivocations of all who would make election refer to nothing but external privileges or rank in service! It is to "salvation" itself that God has chosen us.

It should be noted here that both the OT Hebrew word בָּחִיר (bachiyr) and the NT Greek word ἐκλεκτός (eklektos) were alternately translated “the chosen” and “the elect” in English Bibles; meaning that the Chosen and the Elect are the same people. Pink continues:

Second, we are warned here that election unto salvation does not disregard the use of appropriate means: salvation is reached through "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth". It is not true that because God has chosen a certain one to salvation that he will be saved willy-nilly, whether he believes or not: nowhere do the Scriptures so represent it. The same God who "chose unto salvation", decreed that His purpose should be realized through the work of the spirit and belief of the truth.

Or, as the Apostle Paul put it in Romans 8:29, we are predestined to become like Christ.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

In Ephesians 1:5, Paul tells us that we believers—the Elect—were predestinated to become younger siblings of Christ, members of the family of God.

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.

In this, Paul echoes the words of John 1:3:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name.

All of which, as Pink reminds us, is “cause for fervent praise”!

Third, that God has chosen us unto salvation is a profound cause for fervent praise. Note how strongly the apostle expresses this - "we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation", etc. Instead of shrinking back in horror from the doctrine of predestination, the believer, when he sees this blessed truth as it is unfolded in the Word, discovers a ground for gratitude and thanksgiving such as nothing else affords, save the unspeakable gift of the Redeemer Himself.

Amen.









Footnotes:

1. It was Jim Brown, the pastor of Grace and Truth Ministries, who opened my eyes to the truth of Predestination, Election & the Sovereignty of God. You can watch one of Jim's 90 minute sermons on these doctrines here on YouTube.

Follow the Leader

If you think someone can choose to follow Jesus, think again.

τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούει, κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσίν μοι.

John 10:27

There are still a large number of people out there who think that following Jesus is just a matter of one's choosing to do so. The field of Christian Apologetics would cease to exist if those populating it weren’t certain that all a person has to do is decide that the arguments for following Jesus are more convincing than the arguments against, then act on their new-found conviction. Unfortunately for them, unless Jesus commands that person to follow him, he won’t be able to do it.

Yeah, he should apologize.

The New Testament Gospels are full of accounts of those who try to follow Jesus, but are dissuaded from doing so by the Lord Himself. This is usually due to the person or persons having the wrong reasons for following Him—reasons Jesus always perceives. Several of these incidents spring to mind: the crowd who came to get fed again (John 6:26); the crowd who wanted to crown Him king (Luke 6:15). Jesus was a miracle-worker and drew huge crowds, but by the end of His ministry, there were only a few followers left willing to associate with Him. What false followers He hadn’t chased away personally, were soon sent packing by His arrest, conviction and crucifixion.

In the last six verses at the end of the ninth chapter of the Gospel of Luke (vv. 57-62), where Jesus encounters three different men on His way to Jerusalem, there is a succinct example of both the Lord’s winnowing of would-be followers and His (seemingly) random choosing of disciples. Here’s the full pericope as it appears in the New King James Version:

⁵⁷Now it happened as they journeyed on the road, [that] someone said to Him, "Lord, I will follow You wherever You go." ⁵⁸And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air [have] nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay [His] head."

⁵⁹Then He said to another, "Follow Me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." ⁶⁰Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God."

⁶¹And another also said, "Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go [and] bid them farewell who are at my house.". ⁶²But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

Notice that the first man took it upon himself to become a follower of Jesus; notice, too, the Lord’s somewhat quixotic retort. In the Scriptures, both foxes and birds represent wicked people. In Luke 13:31-32, the fox is Herod; in Matt 13:19, Mark 4:15 and Luke 8:12, the birds of the air are the Wicked One, Satan and the Devil respectively. By introducing this contradistinction between the visible households of the wicked and the homelessness of the righteous in this world, is Jesus revealing something about the first man’s character and his unrighteous reason for following Him?

The answer to that question, it seems to me, would depend upon whether this reply was calculated to dissuade the man or not. If it was, then it should successfully repel him from following Jesus, suggesting strongly that the man is a fox or bird at heart. In the parallel verses of Matthew’s Gospel, where this man is identified as a scribe, we see that the Lord's parabolic reply did indeed stop the fellow from following Him.¹

^8:18And when Jesus saw great multitudes about Him, He gave a command to depart to the other side. ^8:19Then a certain scribe came and said to Him, “Teacher, I will follow You wherever You go.” ^8:20And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air [have] nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay [His] head."

^8:21Then another of His disciples said to Him, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." ^8:22But Jesus said to him, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead."

^8:23Now when He got into a boat, His disciples followed Him.

Clearly, since only disciples followed Jesus into the boat, the scribe didn’t. Another false follower, with the wrong motivation, was sent packing!

The experience of the third man whom Jesus encounters in Luke’s Gospel is similar to the first man. Like him (the scribe), the third man also takes it upon himself to announce that he will follow Jesus. Here, too, the context of the encounter, introduced by the man’s request and the analogy in Jesus’ reply, revolves around the differences between the households of the wicked and the righteous. These similarities between the two encounters indicate that Jesus’ reply was also calculated to repel the man from following Him. And although it is not stated in the text, as with the first reply, this one would've been just as effective.

The effect of these parabolic replies brings to mind the remarks Jesus made after delivering the Parable of the Sower. Although He delivered the parable to a gigantic crowd, it was only His disciples who later followed Him into the house where He had retreated. Only they asked Him what the parable meant and why He spoke to the crowd in parables; the crowd had dispersed in ignorance (cf Matt 13:10; Mark 4:10; Luke 8:9). Here’s how Mark records what Jesus told them:

^4:11And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, ¹²"so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And [their] sins be forgiven them.' "

The word translated “outside” here is ἔξω [ekso], meaning “out of the house”. It is used figuratively in the NT for those who are outside the Household of God, unbelievers belonging to another family.

Here Jesus is echoing the words of Isaiah 6:9-10. What He is saying is that, if He doesn’t want someone who has come to Him to continue following Him, to join His family, He will speak to that person in parables that He’s made sure they cannot understand.

Now let’s compare the experiences of the first and last man of Luke’s Gospel with the experience of the second man.

^9:59Then He said to another, "Follow Me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." ⁶⁰Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God."

The most obvious difference with this exchange is that the second man does not put himself forward like the others did. In fact, he seems rather disinclined to get involved, trying as he does to beg off following by citing his duty to his father at home (his earthly lord)². This time, it is Jesus who initiates the encounter by commanding the man to follow Him.

In the Greek, the verb translated “follow” is in the active imperative mood and, as we learned here in another post, every time Jesus delivers a commandment in the active imperative mood, it is obeyed. Every. Single. Time. Hence Matthew identifies the second man as a disciple who follows Jesus into the boat.

By the way, Matthew’s calling the man a disciple before Jesus orders him to follow Him, does not mean that he was a disciple prior to the call. The Gospel writers are not relating events the way we would narrate them in a fictional story. They are not revealing information sequentially for dramatic effect. Matthew is simply stating the final condition of the man by way of introduction, just as Judas is introduced as the betrayer of Jesus in each of the Gospels before the occasion of his betrayal is related (cf Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16; John 6:71).¹

Notice that even in the encounter with the second man, the wicked/righteous household subtext of the pericope is maintained. However, this time, we see that this man is being adopted into the righteous household. This time, Jesus calls the man out of his “dead” family (“follow me”), orders him to stop serving a “dead” lord (“let the dead bury their dead”), and puts him to work telling others about his new living family and new living Lord (“go preach the Kingdom of God”).

And of course the man does follow Him, just like Jesus tells us, in John 10:27, that all His sheep will do:

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

It's simple, sheep are the only ones who follow Jesus...and nobody gets to make himself a sheep!









Footnotes:

1. When cross-referencing events between the three Synoptic Gospels, it is important to remember that Luke alone states that his is laid out chronologically (v.1:3), therefore the order of events in the other two are not. This means that Matthew’s placement of the first man and his statement in another setting in no way suggests it is a different person.

2. The phrase “bury my father” is not intended literally. It was an idiom meaning to discharge ones duties as an eldest son; which was chiefly to serve the father until he died. The man is asking Jesus for permission to hold off serving Him until he has finished serving his father.

Model Citizen or Pariah?

How can a Christian be a model citizen and hated by the world at the same time?

¹⁵μὴ γάρ τις ὑμῶν πασχέτω ὡς φονεὺς ἢ κλέπτης ἢ κακοποιὸς ἢ ὡς ἀλλοτριο-επίσκοπος ¹⁶εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ.

1 Peter 4:15-16

The following incident of public persecution of Christians was recently cited by a guest on one of the Moody Radio current affairs programs, broadcast on KJNP, Alaska, as evidence of how the upsetting, rising trend in global persecution of Christians is being mirrored here in America. Everyone on the show was aghast that, in this country, someone could air such bigoted sentiments in a room full of children and not be punished. They were all equally adamant that every Christian in the nation had to “get involved” politically to stop this type of thing from ever happening again.

Gay-rights activist Dan Savage, leader of the “It Gets Better” project, a campaign offering support and encouragement to young gays facing rejection and discrimination, gave a speech at a Seattle anti-bullying event that caused quite a stir in the Christian media. Some students, presumably Christian, walked out, offended by hostile remarks Savage made against the Bible and Believers. It was reported that a few of the nearly 100 students who left were visibly upset and “in tears”. Here’s what he said:

People often point out that they can’t help it, they can’t help with the anti-gay bullying, because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in Timothy, it says right there in Romans that being gay is wrong. We can learn to ignore the [lies]¹ in the Bible about gay people

A short time later, Savage, knowing that the students had left because of the vitriol he’d slung at Christians generally, decided to sling some at them directly.

You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible. It’s funny to someone who is on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible how [cowardly]¹ people react when you push back.

I have to say, I find the reactions of both those students who left in tears and those commentators on the radio far more disturbing than anything Savage said. He’s a godless fool; I wouldn’t expect him to think or say anything else. But for people who call themselves Christians to react with anything other than elation at verbal persecution, particularly innocuous persecution like Savage’s, is nothing short of shameful. What Bible have they been reading, I wonder? Have they never read James 1:2?

My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations...

The word translated “temptations” is the Greek noun πειρασμός [peirasmos]. It means a trial or testing of your faith in Christ. It doesn’t mean a piece of chocolate cake dangled in front of you when you’re on a diet. The same word is translated “to try” in 1 Peter 4:12-14.

¹²Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: ¹³But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. ¹⁴If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy [are ye]; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

What kind of appallingly unsound doctrine have these Christians been taught? Don’t they know that unbelievers are supposed to hate us? That if they don’t, then we’re not being Christian enough? That it’s the mark of a Christian to suffer persecution for speaking and acting on the Lord’s behalf?

Isaiah 66:5: Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.

Matthew 10:22: And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 24:9: Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Mark 13:13: And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Luke 21:17: And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake.

His name’s sake, or, simply, for His, the Son of Man’s, sake:

Matthew 5:11: Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Luke 6:22: Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.

Which is equivalent to “righteousness”:

Matthew 5:10: Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

We are to expect nothing but persecution from non-Christians. We aren’t supposed to be model citizens, as another talking head on Moody Radio put it, beloved and respected by all and sundry. We are to be hated for telling the truth and becoming more like Christ everyday. It’s called denying ourselves, taking up our crosses and following Him.

Luke 14:27: And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 16:24: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark 8:34: And when he had called the people [unto him] with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Luke 9:23: And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Yeah, that’s right, we have to take up our crosses daily. We are to welcome suffering and persecution, not collapse in a heap of tears under it and then have our parents force the government to make all the bad boys stop and pretend to like us. We are not supposed to be model citizens; we are supposed to be pariahs.

Why else do you think God birthed us the second time while we were still in a world full of persecutors?








Footnotes:

1. Expletive deleted. If you need to know exactly what he said, google it.