Tag: Ten Things Christians wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Chapter 5

Is remarriage adultery? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So in this one, according to Madison, Jesus says all remarriage is adultery. We can be thankful that at least he went through the work of scholars like David Instone-Brewer and Craig Keener and….

If you’re laughing now, you know what’s coming.

Of course, he didn’t. Who needs to waste time with scholars?

This means that, according to Jesus, adultery is rampant among Christians, given the number of good believers who have been divorced and remarried. And one must wonder whether these followers of Jesus are admitting, when they get divorced, that God joining them together was his mistake?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 40). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

First in response to this, he at first assumes all these divorces are mutual. As someone like myself who is wrongfully divorced, I fought tooth and nail to save my marriage. I also don’t claim all marriages are joined together by God directly, in the sense of God leading people to marry one another, but I do say that even if God does do something, that doesn’t mean we can’t resist His will and go against it. God didn’t make the mistake. We did.

“…except on the ground of unchastity…” Is it possible that even the writer of one of the gospels was embarrassed by something Jesus taught and added a qualifier to tone it down?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 41). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

No. This either something explanatory put in, or else part of what Jesus said in the sermon. If anyone was divorced in Jewish thought, it would likely be assumed that they could remarry. The problem was that there were two schools of thought. One said you could divorce for any reason such as if she burned toast. Instone-Brewer has a quote from one rabbi who says divorce could take place if a prettier girl was found. (I got the book at the library and so am unable to quote it now.) The liberal side was from the Hillel school. The Shammai school tended to say divorce could only be allowed in the case of adultery.

Jesus steps into this discussion which is not about remarriage, but more about divorce. He sides with Shammai, but His case is strong. It needs to be a case of unfaithfulness to the covenant. I have had to do papers here on both the Gospels on divorce and Paul on divorce and came to the same conclusion. Scripture allows for remarriage in the case of wrongful divorce.

Madison goes on to say about Jesus’s command against lust that

So now Jesus is condemning sexual feelings, a teaching that ignores how we are built and has led to unnecessary shame and guilt for centuries. The Greek word translated “lust” in the passage could also mean “longing for” or “desiring.” Even the most devout Christians can’t help noticing when someone comes across to them as “really sexy” and feeling something that is more than simply appreciation. And anyone—Christian or not—who has ever had a partner understands how important sexual feelings can be in creating a mutual attraction between two individuals.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 41). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

No. Jesus is not condemning sexual feelings and desires. He condemns an action in this case. It is looking at another man’s wife with the intention to lust after her. He is right that the word used does refer to strong desire, but He forgets there is an action involved. Why does He condemn this? Because if you are willing to look, it means you are closer to doing. The same could be said for emotional affairs. Open the door for something that seems innocent and it’s not too long many times before it ends in a hotel room.

So once again, Madison doesn’t really understand the passages.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Chapter 4

Will you give me everything you have? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Remember the greatest commandment? Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength? Well, David Madison doesn’t like that commandment.

If you’re a follower of Jesus, ponder the implications of this text for your own life. Is it even possible to give God all? And why does the powerful God who is described as self-sufficient require this level of commitment—a level that few, if any, believers even strive for, let alone attain.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 31). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

So in Christian thinking, God is the greatest good of all, the one who gives every good gift, redeems eventually from every suffering, forgives all your sin, loves you beyond measure, and everything else. Please, make sure you don’t overdo it in loving Him back.

God calls for the best and He deserves the best. What would it say if Jesus had said, “Oh, and make sure you give a little bit of honor to this God dude. Alright?”

He also talks about Ananias and Sapphira as an example and says most Christians either ignore it or explain it away.

I guess explain it away means “Give an explanation for it.”

Quite simple. They were never required to give everything. Peter says so in the text. They could have kept back some of it for themselves had they wanted. The problem was dishonesty and lying. They wanted to get all the glory for giving it all. For the fledgling church, it was needed to show that God is still serious about sin.

Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on. (Mark 12:43-44, NRSV) This script fits Mark’s theme about extreme commitment earlier in the same chapter, and religious bureaucrats have commonly championed “giving until it hurts.” Yes, it’s a legitimate point that the rich don’t deserve high praise for giving away what they won’t miss, but commending the poor widow for her deed? That’s another matter. Under any normal, rational idea of what makes sense, it was not smart that the widow “put in all she had to live on.” It’s more logical to wonder why Jesus didn’t help her get the money back. Why would Jesus commend a mindset that prompts a widow to give away—to a mammoth religious bureaucracy—all the money she has to live on?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 33). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Something to note here is all Jesus says is she gave more than the others did since she gave all she had to live on. He never directly praises her. Could He have been doing that in showing her faithfulness? Yes. Could it be though that the temple was charging higher taxes and she had to give in all that she had? Also, yes. Did Jesus do anything to help this widow out after? The text doesn’t say.

So what about this one?

So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions. (Luke 14:33 NRSV) Certainly this teaching has not stood the test of time. Even the most faithful believers pay little or no attention to it—sure evidence that Christians wish Jesus hadn’t said it.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 34-35). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Actually, the original text doesn’t say possessions. It says all that he has. Looking at the text, what Jesus is talking about is total devotion. Don’t start building a tower unless you are ready to give it your all to finish it. Don’t go to war unless your all is sufficient to handle it. In the same way, if you want to be a disciple, make sure you’re all in.

Which would be standard for a disciple if he wanted to be devoted to a master’s teaching.

So once again, Madison gets basic things wrong that simple research could have answered.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Part 3

Should you give me all your money? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Could you go ahead down to that Patreon link and give me all your money?

Now according to David Madison, you should do so immediately. Why? Jesus said to give to everyone who asks of you. Right? I just asked you. Why aren’t you giving?

We have the words of Jesus after all!

do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:42, NRSV)

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 25). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Oh wait. You’re thinking there’s bound to be some historical context to the message and Madison left that out? You know, that could be right. Let’s see.

As Blomberg says:

None of the commands of vv. 39–42 can easily be considered absolute; all must be read against the historical background of first-century Judaism. Nevertheless, in light of prevailing ethical thought Jesus contrasts radically with most others of his day in stressing the need to decisively break the natural chain of evil action and reaction that characterizes human relationships

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (vol. 22; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 113.

and

In v. 42 Jesus calls his followers to give to those who ask and not turn from those who would borrow. He presumes that the needs are genuine and commands us not to ignore them, but he does not specifically mandate how best we can help. As Augustine rightly noted, the text says “give to everyone that asks,” not “give everything to him that asks” (De Sermone Domine en Monte 67). Compare Jesus’ response to the request made of him in Luke 12:13–15. It is also crucial to note that “a willingness to forego one’s personal rights, and to allow oneself to be insulted and imposed upon, is not incompatible with a firm stand for matters of principle and for the rights of others (cf. Paul’s attitude in Acts 16:37; 22:25; 25:8–12).” Verses 39–42 thus comprise a “focal instance” of nonretaliation; specific, extreme commands attract our attention to a key ethical theme that must be variously applied as circumstances change

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (vol. 22; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 113–114.

Also, Keener says:

One must surrender one’s possessions to whoever requests them (5:42). Judaism recognized giving to beggars who requested alms as a moral though not legal obligation (Guelich 1982: 223). It stressed both charity and a high work ethic; most beggars genuinely had no alternative means of income. Still, giving anything requested to whoever asks for it (cf. Corn. Nep. 5 [Cimon], 4.2, perhaps a rhetorical overstatement) would quickly leave the giver a beggar, too, once word of one’s limitless generosity spread; this practice would quickly reduce one to the possessionless lifestyle of Cynic mendicants (cf. Schweizer 1975: 130).
Some Jewish teachers also urged lending to those who wished to borrow (Moore 1971: 2:168; Bonsirven 1964: 152–53) or reproved those who would too quickly demand repayment (Sir 20:15); others, however, warned of the danger of losses (Sir 19:4; Syr. Men. Sent. 181–88). Likewise, although some sages considered usury the severest of sins (e.g., Tannaim in b. B. Meṣ. 71a; cf. Jos. Apion 2.208; Ant. 4.266; Ex. Rab. 31:13), businessmen found ways to get around biblical laws against usury (Gamoran 1976), and Gentile creditors (who naturally expected repayment, e.g., Mart. Epig. 2.3; 3.40) were more than ready to seize property to recover outstanding debts (P. Cairo Zen. 59001.39–43; P. Amh. 50; P. Oxy. 269).121 Further, despite pietists’ warnings against pursuing debts ruthlessly (Ps-Phocyl. 83; p. Taʿan. 3:11, §4), Jewish teachers also expected repayment (cf., e.g., Sir 8:12) and even devised ways to guarantee it, lest people quit lending (cf. Sanders 1992: 427–28). Whereas some teachers wanted to impose limits on charity (roughly 20 percent beyond tithes) lest one impoverish oneself out of well-intentioned devotion (Hengel 1974b: 20; cf. Jeremias 1969: 127), Jesus places no cap on giving. Yet while Jesus lived simply, especially once he began his itinerant ministry, Matthew implies that he did have a home (4:13). But if Jesus merely counseled, “Live simply,” without confronting his disciples with forceful images, they might define simplicity in terms of their desires rather than in terms of the world’s needs; his forceful rhetoric demands that his disciples contemplate his intention.
Again Jesus invites his hearers to grapple with his point, to which he will return with far greater force in 6:19–34. If nonresistance means disdaining one’s right to one’s own honor (5:38–39), one’s most basic possessions (5:40), and one’s labor and time (5:41) when others seek them by force, one must also disdain these things in view of the needs of the poor (5:42). When the kingdom comes, one’s deeds rather than one’s wealth will matter (6:19–21; cf. 25:34–46); in the meantime those who disdain everything else for the kingdom (13:44–45) must do with these other possessions what Jesus wills: give them to those who need them more (19:21). One’s “vested interests” must be in heaven, not on earth (6:19–21); if one cannot value the kingdom that much, one has no place in it (19:29–30).

Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 201–202.

Both writers recognize that Jewish statements often had rhetorical overplay to them and there were various exceptions and Jesus expected some degree of common sense to them, the kind not found in atheistic writers apparently.

Madison goes on to speak about loving your enemies and saying:

The most pressing question here is: Does God the Father love his enemies? In the Old Testament, he is known as Yahweh—a raging tribal deity—and is not much improved in the New Testament: Jesus speaks of fiery hell and suffering worse than at the time of Noah when the Kingdom arrives. The idea that God loves his enemies is a pretty hard sell.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 29). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

No. It’s not a hard sell because God is not just love. God is also justice. Does Madison equate love to a grandfather in the sky who lets the children just get away with anything? That would not be love. I constantly get amazed that atheists asks why God doesn’t deal with evil in the world and when they find accounts of Him doing just that, they say that that was unloving.

But does it trouble you that Jesus is teaching his followers to base their choices about how to love on what reward they will receive? Wouldn’t it be better to be a loving person just because that’s who you are? Wouldn’t it be better to be generous with others just because that’s how you choose to live?

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 29). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Except we all do that. Why do you choose to just be generous? It is because that does benefit you in some way. You feel better about yourself or think that you were doing the right thing. Jesus promises that you will be provided for.

And then possibly as Blomberg says:

“What reward will you get?” (v. 46) parallels “What are you doing more than others?” (v. 47), suggesting not the idea of compensation for doing good but the recurrent theme of the believer’s distinctiveness.

Craig Blomberg, Matthew (vol. 22; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 115.

So no, I am not bothered.

If anything, I am bothered by wondering how little research Madison did on these passages.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Part 2

Should you put money in a bank? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Madison is taking us now to where Jesus tells us to not store up treasures on Earth and to not worry about what we will eat and drink or wear. Apparently, this mean that Jesus is against having a savings account. It would have made sense he says if you thought that the end of the Roman Empire was just around the corner as the Kingdom of God was going to fully come, but that didn’t happen.

Of course, having a Preterist interpretation, I read the passages quite differently. I don’t expect Madison to have a clue about that. That being said, looking at these passages, none of these mean what Madison wants them to mean.

For the first one, it is saying to not let your heart be built around earthly treasure. After all, that’s going to fade away eventually. Even if you don’t lose it in this life, you can’t take it with you. He who dies with the most toys, still dies.

The second one is saying to not worry. Does Madison really have an objection to that? Does he consider worrying to be good behavior? It doesn’t change the reality of the situation. At the same time, this is not telling people to be lazy. Birds have to do work to get food. We are still to do our part and work, but ultimately, we do our part and trust God to do the rest.

As Madison says about these verses:

If you insist these words of Jesus from Matthew 6 accurately describe how the world works, then I must assume that showing up for work is not a priority for you and that you don’t believe in insurance, savings accounts, or planning for retirement. And I must also assume that your priority every day is putting God’s kingdom first— making it more important than your own physical needs, your own family, and your personal future on this earth.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 21). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

You would be wrong on that. There is a difference between putting all your trust in savings and not having any savings. Also, I do strive to put the Kingdom of God first, but how does that entail not taking care of family or my own physical needs? Madison isn’t clear and without any examples of what he has in mind, then I say he hasn’t shown his case at all.

It’s not a shock to me that he brings up people who die of starvation asking why God doesn’t feed them. For one thing, any statement like this was not an ironclad promise. All Jewish people would know that under many circumstances, things could not apply. Jesus is laying out a general principle. If you were under the siege in the time of Jeremiah, for instance, God would not feed you.

Also, God owes us nothing. All is grace from Him. In the end, no one will be treated unfairly. The righteous who die will receive blessing. The wicked who die will receive justice.

Another point to consider is we have to ask what we are doing. If Madison wants to condemn the idea of laziness, which he should, then he should expect we have to do our part to help the hungry, which we do. One point is it doesn’t matter how good your intentions are with a plan to help the poor. What matters is what are the results. I highly recommend this book on that topic.

That’s all for now. We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught Part 1

Should we love our families? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Sometimes, I wonder why I keep having hope. Why do I hold on to this dream? When will I ever learn that it’s time to give up this false longing and realize it will always turn out the same?

I started reading another atheist book and this one by someone who has a PhD from Boston University in Biblical Studies named David Madison. One would hope that this would mean that this would be someone who will deal seriously with the best scholarship against his position. Unfortunately, as we have gotten used to, he doesn’t. In the bibliography, the only conservative scholarship you will see him interacting with is a commentary Ben Witherington co-wrote on Romans. You will instead see Carrier, Fitzgerald, Doherty, Helms, Sledge, and some guy named Loftus.

So what’s the first thing we see? Luke 14;26.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.”

Ah yes. We have all seen this before. It’s a favorite of Dan Barker. There’s no knowledge whatsoever that Jewish as well as many other people spoke in hyperbole. Never tell these people you’re so hungry you can eat a horse just so they won’t be tempted to be nice and bring you a Clydesdale.

“But the word means hate!” Indeed, it does, but as always context determines meaning. Telling you to hate your parents would violate the Fifth Commandment. The strong language used is used to draw attention to the point. The Kingdom of God must be the most important overall. I can just as well say the words hungry and eat and horse mean what the words mean in the above statement. About hate, Robert Stein says:

This is the first condition. From Matt 10:37 we know that this means to “love [one’s family] less.” This is evident from Gen 29:30–31, where Jacob’s greater love for Rachel (29:30) is phrased as hating Leah (29:31, RSV). Compare also Deut 21:15–17, where the same love-hate dichotomy is used. (The KJV translated the Hebrew literally as love/hate, but the NIV and RSV have translated the Hebrew as loves/does not love and love/dislike.) Compare also 16:13, where a love-hate, devote-despise dichotomy describes preferring one master over another. A person who commits himself or herself to Christ will develop a greater love for both neighbor and family, although at times loving and following Christ may be seen as renunciation, rejection, or hate if the family does not share the same commitment to Christ.

Robert H. Stein, Luke (vol. 24; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 397.

And Evans says:

Jesus, like all of his Jewish contemporaries, believed in loving and honoring one’s parents and family members (e.g., Matt. 15:4; 19:19; Luke 18:20). But in comparison to the importance of the kingdom of God, to which Jesus invites all, then one must hate one’s family, especially if they stand in the way. This idea is expressed in Greo-Roman philosophy: “Isocrates the rhetor used to advise his students to honor their teachers above their parents, because the latter are the cause only of living, while teachers are the cause of living nobly” (Isocrates, Chreia 41, according to Theon).

Craig A. Evans, The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew–Luke (ed. Craig A. Evans and Craig A. Bubeck; First Edition.; Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2003), 409.

David Madison then quotes Hector Avalos.

How would we judge a modern religious leader who said that we should prefer him over our families? Why would we not treat such a person as an egomaniacal cult leader who does what all cult leaders do: transfer allegiance from one’s family to him or her. In other words, the demand would be viewed as unethical in itself.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 13). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

But would it? In a Jewish context, would not loyalty to YHWH be first above all else? This took place plenty of times in church history. For instance, we have the story of the Maccabean brothers who were willing to die and leave behind their mother rather than to deny YHWH. These decisions weren’t made in a vacuum. These people had plenty of past reasons to trust YHWH. Avalos has a scenario where someone shows up outside of a context with no backing to their statements and makes these claims. Jesus showed up in a Jewish context and doing signs and wonders and calling the people to YHWH.

Madison goes on:

“Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:59-62, NRSV) Even as a child, something about this passage bothered me. Can you imagine telling the leader of any organization that you wanted to join, that you were excited about becoming a member, but your father just died, and you would be joining the leader’s group after attending your father’s funeral, then being told, “Let the dead bury their own dead”? I can’t imagine still joining that group!

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 14-15). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Unfortunately for Madison, “being bothered as a child” is not sufficient for saying there is something wrong here. For one thing, it could be the father wasn’t dead yet. He was very much alive and the man was saying he would follow after his family duties had been done. On the other hand, it could be the father had recently died. What would be the problem then? He would still be waiting awhile because he would have to go to a burial spot later on and collect the bones and put them in a bonebox.

Pro-tip: Saying “I don’t like it” or “I don’t understand it” is not an argument.

“Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” But he said to them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” (Luke 8:20-21, NRSV) This has to be a confusing response for believers who constantly champion the cause of family values!

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (p. 15). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

No. It isn’t. Jesus is saying that the new family unit ultimately is found in the community of God, but this doesn’t mean you no longer have any other family. Is Jesus’s teaching here radical though? Yep. Sure is. That’s not being denied.

Finally, Madison says:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. (Matthew 10:14-15, NRSV) When you’ve been a believer for most of your life, it’s easy to overlook how extreme this is. Sodom and Gomorrah were burned to the ground. So, any town that ignores wandering itinerate preachers faces the same fate? Try to imagine yourself in a similar situation. What happens when Mormon missionaries or Jehovah’s Witnesses knock on your door? Most of us send them on their way. We can’t be bothered. How would you react if one of them turned and yelled at you as they walked away, “Just you wait, God will burn your house down!” There’s no other way to see this teaching as anything but brutal and chilling.

Madison, David. Ten Things Christians Wish Jesus Hadn’t Taught: And Other Reasons to Question His Words (pp. 17-18). Insighting Growth Publications. Kindle Edition.

Yes. This teaching is chilling. This is how serious the message of Jesus is.

And?

It’s therefore wrong?

Atheist writers about these topics too often have the implication of “I don’t like it, therefore it’s wrong.” That doesn’t follow. Honestly, there are many teachings I don’t like. It sure would be easier if I didn’t have to avoid looking at women with lust. (A chapter on that later.) It would be easier if I could look at my brother and maintain intense hatred against him. (A chapter on that later as well.) I actually have to forgive someone from my heart when they wrong me?

No. These commands call me to die to myself and many times, I would prefer to do otherwise, but at the same time, living this way is actually very liberating when done.

This first chapter is an indication of how Madison approaches the text. I take it you noticed he does not interact with any other scholarship from the other side on how to interpret these passages.

We’ll look at chapter 2 next time we cover this book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)