Sunday, January 29, 2017

The Humiliation Of Christ by Jonathan Edwards



Please attempt to read this from the 'criminal' aspect, including accusations, gossip, lies, perjury and illicit execution, in preparation for upcoming articles on humiliation, language, impact, and the final trigger to violence. 


                           The Humiliation of Christ
                                                     By Jonathan Edwards

Among those things in particular by which the purchase was made, we must reckon the sufferings and humiliation to which Christ was subject, whence arose the satisfaction he made for sin.

I. He was subject to uncommon humiliation and suffering in his infancy. His mother not only suffered in bearing him, but when her travail came upon her, it is said, “there was no room in the inn,” Luke ii. 7. She was forced to betake herself to a stable; where Christ was born. And we may conclude, that his mother’s circumstances in other respects were proportionably strait and difficult, and that she was destitute of the conveniences necessary for so young an infant which others were wont to have. Besides, he was persecuted in his infancy. They began to seek his life as soon as he was born. Herod, the chief man of the land, was so engaged to kill him, that, in order to it, he killed all the children in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under. And Christ suffered banishment in his infancy, was driven out of his native country into Egypt, and without doubt suffered much by being carried so long a journey, when he was so young, into a strange country.

II. Christ was subject to great humiliation in his private life at Nazareth. He there led a servile, obscure life, in a mean, laborious occupation; for he is called not only the carpenterson, but the carpenterMark vi. 3. “Is not this the carpenter, the brother of James and Joses, and Juda, and Simon?” By hard labour he earned his bread before he ate it, and so suffered that curse which God pronounced on Adam, (Gen. iii. 13. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.” Let us consider how great a degree of humiliation the glorious Son of God, the Creator of heaven and earth, was subject to in this, that for about thirty years he should live a private obscure life among labouring men, and all this while be overlooked, not taken notice of in the world, more than other common labourers. Christ’s humiliation in some respects was greater in private life than in the time of his public ministry. There were many manifestations of his glory in the word he preached, and the miracles he wrought: but the first thirty years of his life he spent among ordinary men, as it were in silence. There was not any thing to make him to be taken notice of more than any ordinary mechanic, only the spotless purity and eminent holiness of his life; and that was in a great measure hid in obscurity; so that he was little taken notice of till after his baptism.

III. Christ was the subject of great humiliation and suffering during his public life, from his baptism till the night wherein he was betrayed.

1. He suffered great poverty, so that he had not where to lay his head, (Matt. viii. 20. compared with John xviii. 1, 2. and Luke xxi. 27. and chap. xxii. 30.) So that what was spoken of Christ in Cant. v. 2.“ My head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night,” was literally fulfilled. And through his poverty he doubtless was often tried with hunger, thirst, and cold. Matt. iv. 2. xxi. 18. His mother and natural relations were poor, not able to help him; and he was maintained by the charity of some of his disciples while he lived. So we read in Luke viii. at the beginning, of certain women that followed him, and ministered unto him of their substance. He was so poor, that he was not able to pay the demanded tribute, without a miracle. See Matt. xvii. 27. And when he ate his last passover, it was not at his own charge, but that of another, as appears by Luke xxii. 7, &c. And from his poverty he had no grave of his own to be buried in. It was the manner of the Jews, unless they were poor, to prepare themselves a sepulchre while they lived. But Christ had no land of his own, though he was possessor of heaven and earth; and therefore was buried by Joseph of Arimathea’s charity, and in his tomb, which he had prepared for himself.

2. He suffered great hatred and reproach. He was despised and rejected of men; one of little account, slighted for his low parentage, and his mean city Nazareth. He was reproached as a glutton and drunkard, a friend of publicans and sinners; was called a deceiver of the people; sometimes was called a madman, and a Samaritan, and one possessed with a devil. (John vii. 20. viii. 48. and John x. 20.) He was called a blasphemer, and was accounted by many a wizard, or one that wrought miracles by the black art, and by communication with Beelzebub. 
579
They excommunicated him, and agreed to excommunicate any man that should own him. (John ix. 22.) They wished him dead, and were continually seeking to murder him; sometimes by force, and sometimes by craft. They often took up stones to stone him, and once led him to the brow of a hill, intending to throw him down the precipice, to dash him in pieces against the rocks.

He was thus hated and reproached by his own visible people: John i. 11. “He came to his own, and his own received him not.” And he was principally despised and hated by those who were in chief repute, and were their greatest men. Indeed the hatred was general. Into whatever part of the land he went, he met with hatred and contempt; in Capernaum, and Jericho; in Jerusalem, which was the holy city, even when he went to the temple to worship; also in Nazareth, his own city, among his own relations, and his old neighbours.

3. He suffered the buffetings of Satan in an uncommon manner. One time in particular, he had a long conflict with the devil, when he was in the wilderness forty days, with wild beasts and devils; and was so exposed to the devil’s power, that he was carried about by him from place to place, while he was otherwise in a very suffering state.—So much for the humiliation and suffering of Christ’s public life, from his baptism to the night wherein he was betrayed.

IV. I come now to his last humiliation and sufferings, from the evening of the night wherein he was betrayed to his resurrection. And here was his greatest humiliation and suffering, by which principally he made satisfaction to the justice of God for the sins of men. 

First, his life was sold by one of his own disciples for thirty pieces of silver; which was the price of the life of a servant, Exod. xxi. 32. Then he was in dreadful agony in the garden. There came such a dismal gloom upon his soul, that he began to be sorrowful and very heavy, and said, that his “soul was exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, and was sore amazed. 

 So violent was the agony of his soul, as to force the blood through the pores of his skin; so that while his soul was overwhelmed with amazing sorrow, his body was clotted with blood. 

The disciples, who used to be as his friends and family, at this time above all appeared cold towards, and unconcerned for him, at the same time that his Father’s face was hid from him. 

Judas, to whom Christ had been so very merciful, and who was treated as one of his family or familiar friends, comes and betrays him in the most deceitful, treacherous manner. 

The officers and soldiers apprehend and bind him; his disciples forsake him, and flee; his own best friends do not stand by him to comfort him in this time of his distress. 

He is led away as a malefactor to appear before the priests and scribes, his venomous, mortal enemies, that they might sit as his judges. 

Now they had got him into their hands, they sat up all night, to have the pleasure of insulting him. But because they aimed at nothing short of his life, they set themselves to find some colour to put him to death, and seek for witnesses against him. When none appeared, they set some to bear false witness; and when their witness did not agree together, they examined him, in hope to catch something out of his own mouth. They hoped he would say, that he was the Son of God, and then they thought they should have enough. But because they see they are not like to obtain this, they adjure him, in the name of God, to say whether he was or not: and when he confessed that he was, then it was a time of rejoicing with them, which they show, by spitting in his face, blindfolding him, and striking him in the face with the palms of their hands and then bidding him prophesy who it was that struck him; thus ridiculing him for pretending to be a prophet.

 And the very servants have a hand in the sport:  “And the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.”

During the sufferings of the night, Peter, one of the chief of his own disciples, instead of standing by to comfort, appears ashamed to own him, and denies and renounces him with oaths and curses. 

And after the chief priests and elders had finished the night in so shamefully abusing him, in the morning, (the morning of the most wonderful day that ever was,) they led him away to Pilate, to be condemned to death by him, because they had not the power of life and death in their own hands. 

He is brought before Pilate’s judgment-seat, and there the priests and elders accuse him as a traitor. And when Pilate, upon examining into the matter, declared he found no fault in him, the Jews were but the more fierce and violent to have him condemned. Upon which Pilate, after clearing him, very unjustly brings him upon a second trial; and then not finding any thing against him, acquits him again. Pilate treats him as a poor worthless fellow; but is ashamed on so little pretence to condemn him as a traitor.

And then he was sent to Herod to be tried by him, and was brought before his judgment-seat; his enemies followed, and virulently accused him before Herod. Herod does not condemn him as a traitor, or one that would set up for a king, but looks upon him as Pilate did, as a poor worthless creature, not worthy to be noticed, and makes a mere laugh of the Jews accusing him as dangerous to Caesar, as one setting up to be a king against him; and therefore, in derision, dresses him up in a mock robe, makes sport of him, and sends him back through the streets of Jerusalem to Pilate with the mock robe on.

Then the Jews prefer Barabbas before him, and are instant and violent with loud vociferations to Pilate, to crucify him. So Pilate, after he had cleared him twice, and Herod once, very unrighteously brings him on trial the third time, to try if he could not find something sufficient to crucify him. Christ was stripped and scourged: thus he gave his back to the smiters. After that, though Pilate still declared that he found no fault in him; yet so unjust was he, that for fear of the Jews he delivered Christ to be crucified. But before they execute the sentence, his spiteful and cruel enemies take the pleasure of mocking him again; they get round him, and make a set business of it. They stripped him, put on him a scarlet robe, a reed in his hand, and a crown of thorns on his head. Both Jews and Roman soldiers were united in the transaction; they bow the knee before him, and in derision cry, Matt. xxvii. 29.“Hail, king of the Jews.” They spit upon him also, take the reed out of his hand, and smite him on the head. After this they led him away to crucify him, made him carry his own cross, till he sunk under it, his strength being spent; and then they laid it on one Simon, a Cyrenian.

At length, being come to mount Calvary, they execute the sentence which Pilate had so unrighteously pronounced. They nail him to his cross by his hands and feet, then raise it erect, and fix one end in the ground, he being still suspended on it by the nails which pierced his hands and feet. Now Christ’s sufferings are come to the extremity: now the cup, which he so earnestly prayed might pass from him, is come; he must, he does drink it. In those days crucifixion was the most tormenting kind of death by which any were wont to be executed. There was no death wherein the person experienced so much of mere torment: and hence the Roman word, which signifies torment, is taken from this kind of death.—Besides what our Lord endured in this excruciating corporeal death, he endured vastly more in his soul. Now was that travail of his soul, of which we read in the prophet; now it pleased God to bruise him, and to put him to grief; now he poured out his soul unto death, as in Isa. liii. And if the mere forethought of this cup made him sweat blood, how much more dreadful and excruciating must the drinking of it have been! Many martyrs have endured much in their bodies, while their souls have been joyful, and have sung for joy, whereby they have been supported under the sufferings of their outward man, and have triumphed over them. But this was not the case with Christ; he had no such support; but his sufferings were chiefly those of the mind, though the other were extremely great. In his crucifixion Christ did not sweat blood, as he had done before; not because his agony was now not so great, but his blood had vent another way. But though he did not sweat blood, yet such was the sufferings of his soul, that probably it rent his vitals; when his side was pierced, there came forth blood and water. And so here was a kind of literal fulfilment of that in Psal. xxii. 14. “I am poured out like water;—my heart is like wax, it is melted in the midst of my bowels.”
Now under all these sufferings the Jews still mock him; and wagging their heads say, “Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.” 630 And even the chief priests, scribes, and elders, joined in the cry, saying, “He saved others, himself he cannot save. 631 “ And probably the devil at the same time tormented him to the utmost of his power; and hence it is said, Luke xxii. 53. “This is your hour, and the power of darkness.”

Under these sufferings, Christ, having cried out once and again with a loud voice, at last said, IT IS FINISHED, (John xix. 30.) “and bowed the head, and gave up the ghost.” And thus was finished the greatest and most wonderful thing that ever was done. Now the angels beheld the most wonderful sight that ever they saw. Now was accomplished the main thing that had been pointed at by the various institutions of the ceremonial law, by all the typical dispensations, and by all the sacrifices from the beginning of the world.

Christ being thus brought under the power of death, continued under it till the morning of next day but one. Then was finished that great work, the purchase of our redemption, for which such great preparation had been made from the beginning of the world. Then was finished all that was required in order to satisfy the threatenings of the law, and all that was necessary in order to satisfy divine justice; then the utmost that vindictive justice demanded, even the whole debt, was paid. Then was finished the whole of the purchase of eternal life. And now there is no need of any thing more to be done towards a purchase of salvation for sinners; nor has ever any thing been done since, nor will any thing more be done for ever and ever.

52 comments:

Bobcat said...

Is this an excerpt from "The Excellency of Christ"?

http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/edwards/excellency.html

The version here in Part Two C) 1-7 is very different.

Nic said...

What struck me was the "compound" (not double) jeopardy. They just wouldn't stop persecuting him until they were given "permission" to execute Jesus Christ.

Anonymous said...

I havent finished reading, but I dont get why Judas betrayed Jesus? The price he was paid was not much and then didnt he feel so guilty he hung himself the very next day? Why did he betray him?

Katprint said...

The gospels are unclear about Judas' motivation. Matthew indicates Judas did it out of a petty greed for 30 pieces of silver, but then in contradiction describes returning the money to the priests and hanging himself. Luke says that Judas did it after he was possessed by Satan. Old apocryphal Gnostic texts praise Judas for his role in triggering humanity's salvation (especially since the gospels could easily be interpreted as showing that Christ was NOT a willing sacrifice, that he did not voluntarily go as a lamb to the slaughter, and that he would have happily continued to live his mortal life if Judas had not betrayed him.)

Anonymous said...

In the Biblical account, it seems like Pilate just wanted to let him go...I never understood why he turned the power over to the crowd saying who do you want to set free? Jesus or Barabas? I dont get why Pilate didnt just let him go? Was he just apathetic like "yeah OK whatever the crowd wants"....because even Pilate's wife had a terrible dream that Pilate shouldnt have agreed to have Jesus killed, which means I bet Pilate told his wife right after he went along with the crowds wishes that he regretted doing so I bet.

Anonymous said...

@Katprint, Interesting....thank you for telling me what the different gospels and Gnostic texts say about it! It's even stranger when you consider it seems Jesus KNEW at the last super that Judas would be the one to betray him, but I agree that no, Jesus did not want to go like a willing lamb to the slaughter.

As strange as it may seem, when I read "The Green Mile" by Steven King, just thinking it would be a good read, was the first time things started to click and I actually "got" (understood) who Jesus was, things about his life and also some of the things that happened to him. Raised Catholic, going to church every Sunday never got me to understand Jesus or his life more than reading that book, and like I said, I only read it bc I was looking for a good read and it was in my library, but wow, that book is awesome! I almost think Jesus was so much a "healer" (in a supernatural way) that he didnt really think that much about himself, all his energy radiated out to heal people...think of it...he could cure blindness, fix a soldier's severed ear, raise people from the dead, cast out powerful demons, and much more....but yeah I dont understand why Judas betrayed him (it's really hard to understand why he did it) as well as why Pilate didnt just free him bc you could tell Pilate not only has no malice towards him but also wants nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...

It's my understanding that Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him, and he accepted it it was the way it was supposed to be. He knew.

Anonymous said...

@9:34, I agree, he had to have known bc he said "One of you will betray me" and he knew it would be Judas. I dont get why Jesus didnt flee or hide.

Anonymous said...

I thought of one thing trying to view this from a 'criminal' aspect: It seems that in some cases we have looked at, people commit murder to gain small amounts of money. Maybe because they first humiliate their target, the target seems worthless to them???

Sorry if this is stupid, I have a sinus infection, so I am somewhat out of it.

Anonymous said...

Peter
This has nothing to do with this blog. I was wondering if you had heard in the news about a car rampaging in Melbourne on 20 January.

According to news reports, 5 people were killed and over a dozen injured. 3 members of the Hakin family (mother and 2 daughters) were all hit. The older daughter (10 year old Thalia) was killed, the younger daughter (9 year old Maggie) suffered a broken leg and the mothe (Nathalie) is still in hospital but her injuries do not appear to have been reported.

The funeral was held of Nathalie last Wednesday. It was a Jewish funeral and the private service was video recorded and can be viewed here: http://www.mck.org.au/recordings/1485306000000_16222

It lasts about 80 minutes. During the service, Thalia's grandfather speaks (briefly) at 50:40 and her father (Tony) speaks at 52:00 for less than 10 minutes. He speaks about his daughter in a most peculiar way, referring to her as "the baby", "the little girl", and similar references throughout. From reading your blogs, alarm bells went off when I heard him talk about her in this way.

He, bizarrely, talks about her birth saying "when the baby came out" and only talks about memories of her when she was a very young baby (not sleeping). He does not tell us anything about her at all (not a single story). He talks about her as if she was an object and did not even know her let alone that he was her father.

Also, even more bizarrely, he goes to great length talking about (very calmly) what happened to her and his family (being hit by the car) and trying to contact him and he making his way to the scene. This does not seem normal at all. a friend of min's teenage son was hit and killed by a truck. At the funeral (and wake after) my friend did not remotely mention what happened that day (let alone a minute by minute account) but instead relayed all the good memories he had of hum and his son.

I don't think there is a transcript of his speech but I was wondering if you could take a look at the video and give your initial thoughts.
Thanks,
Max

Anonymous said...

Peter
I meant to say the funeral of Thalia not Nathalie. Sorry for the confusion.
Max

Peter Hyatt said...

Max,

if a father of a grown daughter speaks of her, in the context of a funeral, as "the little girl" and "the baby"---by itself, he may be going back in time and referring to her as he related to her then. If time allows, I will take a look at the transcript but this is not unusual nor unexpected in itself.

The role of parent (and sometimes of very close grand parenting) captures, in the mind, moments in time that were highly impactful, and at a funeral, those moments are often positive memories.

"the" has a lot to do with the role that the subject played...

Interesting post. Thank you, Peter

General P. Malaise said...

I do not see Christ's early life as a humiliation. It was a proud (not vain) upbringing and honest existence.

I think people tried to humiliate him but he was beyond that.

Judas' betrayal s not that hard to understand if one reads the bible. He is not that untypical of what one finds in society.

Anonymous said...

I agree with G.P. Malaise. Jonathan Edwards seems to go out of his way to make Jesus entire life a humiliation. He tries to make everything about Jesus' hardships seem extraordinary. Almost everything about Jesus life was ordinary, even his execution. The Romans were regularly hanging Jews, and others they thought deserved it, on crosses. Who Jesus was (and is still) is what is extraordinary.

Jonathan Edwards seems to take the approach that if he can make Jesus' life seem pathetic and harsh, then it will make others feel sorry for him and join in His cause.

Karl

General P. Malaise said...

further to that Jesus chose to live poor. he knew of everything that was going to happen and did not try to avoid his fate.

Peter Hyatt said...

General Malaise,

The use of "humiliation" in the 18th century may have a different meaning than today.

In Edwards' writing, "humiliation" is not an emotion, but a state. From his perspective, a King living beneath his station (in poverty or a blue collar home) is a "humiliation" of standard; not a personal insult or feeling.

I believe our language has shrunk quite a bit over the years (even when introducing new words), which mimics the direction of primitive cultures.

That Jesus chose to live poor (your words) is to embrace the humiliation status.

Try to think of it less as an emotion (impact) than actual status.

This is one of many reasons why I urge those interested in training to find the time to read outside of our culture...especially if they can, Shakespeare for example.

I love the "No Fear Shakespeare" books!

I also urge them to read books about the nature of man, and history books on primitive cultures, behaviors and language.

A great example of this is the first hand accounts of African explorers, slave traders, adventurists, and missionaries. Particularly, those who learned various African languages.

Next, I urge them to study religion as ideology so they can see how non practice subjects are impacted by being raised in a culture that was founded upon religious ideology.

For example:

What did lands that were taught "thou shalt not" produce, culturally, in comparison to lands that were not exposed to "thou shalt not"?

With whom would you prefer to live next to?

What does it do to language today?

Do people understand the origin of their own language and thought process?

Analysts love truth and they often find themselves in personal crisis as they trace the origin of their own choice of words by asking one question:

Why?

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Katprint said...
The gospels are unclear about Judas' motivation. Matthew indicates Judas did it out of a petty greed for 30 pieces of silver, but then in contradiction describes returning the money to the priests and hanging himself. Luke says that Judas did it after he was possessed by Satan. Old apocryphal Gnostic texts praise Judas for his role in triggering humanity's salvation (especially since the gospels could easily be interpreted as showing that Christ was NOT a willing sacrifice, that he did not voluntarily go as a lamb to the slaughter, and that he would have happily continued to live his mortal life if Judas had not betrayed him.)

January 29, 2017 at 8:46 PM Delete


Katprint, an interesting post.

Some questions:

Why was Judas the treasure for The Twelve?

And then a heavy one...

What did David tell us about Judas' life, including his family?

This posting has produced some interesting responses. Avinoam Sapir's book on Genesis is loaded with some advanced analysis that is eye opening!

Katprint, here's one upcoming for fun I will post for analysis....you are already familiar with order and its importance...

Peter

Anonymous said...

Katprint, and others, regarding the comments that Christ was NOT a willing sacrifice (or that the -gnostic? -gospels could easily be interpreted this way)

Can I ask you to please consider these texts?

-John 4:32-34 "But he said to them (his disciples) 'I have food to eat of which you do not know'....'My food is to do the will of Him who sent me, and to finish His work'"

-John 11:17 "Therefore my Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."

-John12:27 "Now my soul is troubled, but what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name."

-John 17:1,2 (in the garden of Gethsemane) "Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said, 'Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may also glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.'"

-Matt 26:39-42 Jesus "prayed, saying, 'Oh my Father, if it is possible, let this cup (the cup of God's wrath poured out on Him) pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will' ...'Oh my Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done'" - parentheses mine, this, I believe, would be the passage that could lead people to think He did not willingly sacrifice Himself, but if we consider the whole of Scripture, we see that it is not so, but rather that He subverted/submitted His will to the Father...thus, being willing.

-John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends? You are my friends..." -Jesus is obviously referring to Himself here. What kind of love would it be to be taken away, against our will, and murdered? In that case, it would be forced upon Him, but it would not be sacrificial love.

Philippians 2:7,8 Jesus "made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross"

Hebrews 12:2 "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross, despisin the shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."


I do not mean to be argumentative, but to point only to the glory of Christ. The redemption purchased on the cross, for those who believe, is rendered powerless without Jesus' active submission of His will to the Father. Yes, He knew what would happen because He knew His purpose in coming, to seek and save that which was lost. It is active, not passive.

Warm regards,
SLH

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:08,
Thank you for providing these verses....they are very illuminating and thought-provoking.
It seems from reading all the verses, that Jesus did not want to be killed, but was willing to be killed? Honestly, I dont get why Jesus "had to be sacrificed" to "please God" and redeem sins.
What about other stuff that happened to Jesus? Like when he went into the dessert for 40 days--the whole time the devil was tormenting him? For 40 days he had to just fend off the devil. What if Jesus thinking he had to be sacrificed for God and to redeem man was something similar like he knew people hated him, he knew he was different than other people (he can heal and raise the dead), he was probably tired and worn out, and what if he just gave up? I feel like his words could mean that he knew he was really different (could heal and raise the dead) and he knew he would keep getting picked on for that reason alone and people would just keep trying to kill him bc he was so remarkably different and people were scared of that and so he just gave up?
Maybe when he said "My God, why have you forsaken me?" he meant "why was I given all these powers when it meant people on earth would attack me and then kill me?" Cause I have never understood why Jesus "had to die" for man's sins.

Peter Hyatt said...

Interesting discussion...


What was Jesus' emotion regarding the cross?

Isaiah said many years before: "He shall see the travail of HIs soul and be satisfied."

The driving impetus to endure the unmeasured punishment??

Peter

General P. Malaise said...

I don't agree that Edward is only implying a state and not emotion regarding the term humiliation.

Jesus was actually born into the House of David which infers status (where one infers status by means of lineage, something I don't and from my take Jesus did not either). His life as a carpenter and member of society was exemplary both religiously following the law and as a conscientious member of the community.

Judas was not a mystery. Jesus knew before he met him that he would be betrayed by Judas and gave him every opportunity to mend his ways even knowing he would not. This could be one of the reasons he made him the treasurer of the group. The opportunity to mend his ways without force by free will. Some may say it was a trap but then that person would not understand Jesus. He laid no traps.

As to his emotion to the cross. Jesus knew it was what was required to fulfil his mission and he spoke often of the sufferings he would endure in the fulfillment of the prophecies. It was as he claimed the price of redemption for us and the completion of his duty to his Father.

General P. Malaise said...

I have been reading the Gospel As Revealed To Me by Maria Valtorta. I am halfway through book 9 of 10 books. It covers the public life of Jesus. Many of the chapters are available on the link below. Along the left side of the page are links to individual chapters.

http://www.valtorta.org/home_defaultpage.asp

Anonymous said...

@1:33, WHY, other than it being told to us over and over in church, would God require Jesus to die a (brutal) death to redeem Mankind?
I know that is what I am supposed to believe as a Catholic, but it makes no sense to me, and I actually find the idea bizarre as well as disturbing!
I can understand the meaning of his death...people often attack goodness, people hated Jesus, he was killed and then rose from the dead....I "get" all that...I just dont understand why he supposedly had to die to "redeem mankind".
Is it a metaphor?

tania cadogan said...

Humiliation = humility.

If Jesus existed and he was crucified as claimed, why are there no roman records given that he was the Jewish messiah?

Surely someone of such importance (claimed) would have been noteworthy even if if was just a brief report about the goings on in Jerusalem?

We know the names and deeds of gladiators and what have you.

General P. Malaise said...

tania

Jesus was condemned like a criminal such as a thief. In that period there would not be that much made of it, the Roman empire was large and area of Judea was not all that important to the Romans. I am sure there was a record made but it would not necessarily survive. That said the New Testament does record it.

The Romans did not want to crucify him, they did it to satisfy the religious leaders of the Jews. Jesus was a Jew and never claimed not to be. The religious Jews do not believe he was God even though Jesus lived the life and prophecy they claim to wait for.

Anonymous said...

I agree w Malaise. Jesus was treated as an everyday criminal and his being a "King" was mocked as if it was a joke.

I agree also, the Jewish religion is weird...a total bummer...they dont even believe in an afterlife.

General P. Malaise said...

Peter if you mean by humiliated you mean what we consider humble than I concede to that.





266. Jesus Works as a Carpenter at Korazim.
31st August 1945.
Jesus is working diligently in a carpenter's workshop. He is finishing a wheel. A delicate sad child helps Him handing this or that tool to Him. Manaen, although an idle witness, admires Him sitting on a bench near a wall.
Jesus has taken off His beautiful linen tunic and has put on a dark one, which is obviously not His own as it reaches only half way down His shins. It is an overall, clean although patched, which probably belonged to the deceased carpenter.
Jesus encourages the boy with smiles and kind words, teaching him what he must do to prepare the glue properly and polish the sides of the chest.
« It did not take You long to finish it, Master » says Manaen standing up and running a finger on the mouldings of the finished chest that the boy is polishing with a fluid.
« It was almost finished!… »
« I wish I had this work of Yours. But the buyer has already come and he seems to have acquired some rights… You have disappointed him. He was hoping to be able to take everything to make up for the little money he had lent. Now he has to take his articles and nothing else. If he were one who believed in You… they would be of infinite value to him. But did You hear?… »
« Leave him. On the other hand there is some wood here, and the woman will be happy to make use of it and have some profit. Give an order for a chest and I will make it for you… »
« Really, Master? Do you intend to go on working? »
« Until there is no more wood left. I am a conscientious worker » He says smiling more frankly.
« A chest made by You! Oh! What a relic! But what shall I put in it? »
« Anything you like, Manaen. It will only be a chest. »
« But made by You! »
« So? The Father also made man, He made all men. And what did man put in himself, what do men put in themselves? » Jesus speaks while working, moving about looking for the necessary tools, tightening vices, drilling, planing, turning, according to what is needed.
« We have put sins in ourselves. That's true. »
« See! And you may rest assured that man created by God is worth much more than a chest made by Me. Never mix up objects and actions. Of My chest just make a relic for your soul. »

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:45

Hello and you're welcome.

Your main question is "why did Jesus have to die?" This is the most important one you've asked, and I'm sorry that I don't have time to address the others. I'll just make two points in reference to your question.

1. Jesus is God Incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" -Isaiah 9 - He is the Word made Flesh - John 1:1. He is the perfect, sinless Lamb of God, who fulfilled the sacrificial system once and for all. In His death on the tree, bearing the full weight of the sins of those who would believe in Him, He put the mercy and glory of God on display. It was His plan from the beginning to save the lost in this way.

2. We cannot please God on our own. There is no good we can do to cancel out our sin, or have God overlook it. He cannot if He is a Just Judge. We need a Savior. The problem is that we tend toward self-righteousness and want to believe we can save ourselves by good works.

Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Romans 5:7 "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

I hope this is helpful
Sincerely,
SLH

Anonymous said...

SLH,

Thanks, but I still dont understand, but its probably hard to figure out the meaning of Jesus, his life, death and ressurection.

Anonymous said...

Peter

Thank you for responding to my off-topic comment. I appreciate how busy you must be and all the similar requests that you receive so I understand if you do not have the time to view the video of the father speaking at the funeral. But if you can squeeze it in their would be much appreciated.

His speech lasts for less than 10 minutes starting at 52:00 so you don't need to watch the whole thing. I have never seen anything so bizarre in all my days and I'm very interested in hearing what you make of it.

Cheers, Max

Anonymous said...

Anon at 8:09

I can appreciate that. Do you have a Bible? May I suggest reading the book of John? (the gospel, not the epistles/letters). It is a good place to start if you want to know Jesus and why He came.

His salvation is personally offered to you. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and the only way to God the Father.
Sincerely,
SLH

Anonymous said...

SLH,

OK, thanks, I'll check it out. Gospel of John...I'll read it. Thanks very much!

Anonymous said...

I started reading it: This is from John 2 "Jesus Changes Water into Wine"

"On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” 4 “Woman,why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.” "

I wonder what that means...I think it means that he didn't want to perform a miracle (he didn't want to show his powers) of changing water into wine, because it was doing stuff like that that would get him killed in the end.

I will read the rest of it.

Peter Hyatt said...

General,

Say, it is a good example of the shifting of meaning in words.

In my parents day, they often felt "gay" and might drop a "fag" on the ground; something they all did, often with a cup of "joe", while chasing "tomatoes" with their "coconut" friends.

This is "on the level" by the way.

Peter

PS: Mark, dontcha dare comment on this!

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Re: Tania Cadogan January 30, 2017 @ 5:27 PM

tania cadogan said...


If Jesus existed and he was crucified as claimed, why are there no roman records given that he was the Jewish messiah?

Surely someone of such importance (claimed) would have been noteworthy even if if was just a brief report about the goings on in Jerusalem?

We know the names and deeds of gladiators and what have you.
_____________________________________________________
Good questions and logical thinking! Actually, Jesus is referenced by THE premier Jewish Historian Josephus Flavius in The Works of Josephus. Josephus, a devout Jew, was born about 8 years after Jesus' Crucifixion. At 16, he studied the teachings of the 3 sects of Judaism (the Pharisees, the Saducees, and the Essenes). At 19 he became a member of the Pharisees. At 26, he traveled to Rome and successfully petitioned Nero for the release of some Jewish prisoners (the Romans were constantly in danger of an organized Jewish uprising as the Jews hated their pagan invaders and seriously outnumbered them-Rome had overextended her military and was continually facing the threat of uprisings on numerous fronts). Long story short, Josephus being a loyal Jew was pressed by the Jews to serve as leader of a Jewish uprising (he tried to dissuade the Galilean Jews, knowing they'd lose) and was imprisoned. While imprisoned, the soon-to-be Emperor Vespasian learned of his intellect and Josephus gained favor. Once he became Emperor, Vespasian pardoned Josephus and Vespasian's son Titus (who would become Emperor Titus Flavius) employed Josephus (Josephus adopted their family surname Flavius). He proceeded to write The Works of Josephus to record the history of the Jews from the beginning through his lifetime.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...


RE: Anonymous January 30, 2017 @2:38 PM

You said...
** SNIPPED**
@1:33, WHY, other than it being told to us over and over in church, would God require Jesus to die a (brutal) death to redeem Mankind?
----I just dont understand why he supposedly had to die to "redeem mankind".
Is it a metaphor?
______________________________________________
I understand your questions, I wondered the same things too. Maybe this will help. When Adam & Eve were created in the Garden of Eden, they were inherently good. They had God's nature- they did not know how to do evil (think/say/do bad, hurtful, harmful, selfish things- the opposite of God's nature). When they ate the fruit from the Tree of The Knowledge of God and Evil, they knew how to sin. The end result ("Wages"-payment for one's work) was death (physically and spiritually). Sin (the fruit of acting evil) separates men from a sinless, holy, good God. God made a provision for this in the Old Testament, with an animal sacrifice- instead of Adam & Eve dying, a blemish-free animal was ritualistically killed in their stead. God wanted Adam & Eve to see how ugly their sin was, the end result, and realize their need for Him. The animal sacrifices couldn't fix the problem of changing their actual nature; they were continually having to sacrifice animals. That's where Jesus comes in. Humanity needed a Savior, but he couldn't be born of two human beings (with a sin nature- a propensity to do bad/selfish/evil things). So, God sent Jesus, placed in human form as baby in Mary's womb. He grew up, did many miracles, and when the time came, died on the cross as the sacrifice (being the only being without sin). The death was violent because he took all of humanity's sin punishment because no one is without sin. Although we like to "grade" our sins as being "little" to "evil", we've all done some variation. ;)

Foolsfeedonfolly said...


Tania- I forgot to tell you that you're unlikely to find Jesus mentioned in a Roman historical document because:

-He wasn't Roman, much less a prominent Roman...just a Jew
-He was considered a criminal because the Pharisees (the Keepers of Jewish Law)and the Sanhedrin (the Jewish ruling body) had declared Him so for claiming to be the Son of God
- Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of the region, was having trouble keeping the Jews in order. Any negative "press" would threaten his standing with Caesar Augustus and would likely result in his "demise". In an attempt to placate the Jews, Pilate had a tradition of allowing the people a semblance of self-rule in allowing them to choose to set a Jewish prisoner free at Passover (a "good-will" gesture on his part and a nod to Sanhedrin).
-The Pharisees, the Saducees, and the Sanhedrin were well aware of the prophesies concerning the coming Messiah and had already dealt with several false "Messiahs" (and the subsequent loss of Jewish lives when the false Messiahs led them to rebel against the Romans). They were expecting a great military hero to free them from Roman rule. They also wielded great power and weren't about to lose their control over the Jewish people. So, when Passover came and it was time to choose a prisoner, they incited the Jews against Jesus.
- Although Pilate had nothing against Jesus, he was politically stuck. To go against the Jews would provoke them to rebellion (and bring Caesar down on his own head).
-Pilate would not have recorded or allowed it recorded that he was having trouble keeping his region in order.

Anonymous said...

Fools,

Thanks for your in-depth response. It is thought-provoking and has helped me clarify my own thoughts and questions: You wrote

"The animal sacrifices couldn't fix the problem of changing their actual nature; they were continually having to sacrifice animals. That's where Jesus comes in. Humanity needed a Savior, but he couldn't be born of two human beings (with a sin nature- a propensity to do bad/selfish/evil things). So, God sent Jesus, placed in human form as baby in Mary's womb. He grew up, did many miracles, and when the time came, died on the cross as the sacrifice (being the only being without sin). The death was violent because he took all of humanity's sin punishment because no one is without sin. Although we like to "grade" our sins as being "little" to "evil", we've all done some variation. ;)"

You articulated well the way the church, I believe, views the death of Christ. My confusion is I don't agree with their view that God intended Jesus to be a perfect human sacrifice (or scapegoat) to redeem man's sins. I understand the "logic" which extends back to the belief in "Original Sin", etc. as well as ritual animal sacrifice. I believe that Jesus died a brutal death and I believe he rose again (was resurrected), and I think, that is where the meaning lies...that Jesus (in a real, physical sense) was able to overcome sin and death by his actual physical resurrection.
AS far as Christ's death itself, and the Church believing he is the sacrificial lamb (the scapegoat) and that God intended this....I don't believe that, and one reason I don't believe it is because Jesus said as he was dying on the cross "Forgive them for they know not what they do." (meaning forgive those who were killing him). That is a clear statement that what was being done to Jesus should not have happened, that it wasn't part of some cosmic plan or design to redeem mankind. Also, another thing, Jesus died very quickly, so quickly that Pilate could not believe that Jesus had died that quickly, which tells me that he was not meant to suffer...yes he did suffer greatly, but at least mercifully he died quickly.

Also, if Christ were intended by God as the sacrificial lamb (scapegoat), then the resurrection has no meaning. The resurrection, in my opinion, has meaning because he overcame what was NOT supposed to happen, the evil done to him, the suffering, as well as the death imposed on him. That is the only way the resurrection has real meaning and joy is if it is truly the overcoming of evil and death...how can something intended by God be "overcome"??? What I am trying to say is that I think that Christ's death was not intended by God, otherwise Jesus would not have said while he was on the cross to God "Forgive them they know not what they do."

Anonymous said...

I don't think the church has Jesus all figured out.

Jesus spoke in parables, because the things he was trying to convey were meant to be mysterious and puzzled over and seen from many angles--there are many layers of depth to the meaning. It is not that there is no concrete meaning--it is just that the meaning has a certain texture, a certain mysterious depth that we are meant to accept.

That is how Jesus's mind works, so when he says "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" what does that mean?!?!

It doesn't mean only one thing, but it certainly does mean something.

One thing I think it means is that God (the Father to whom he addresses the statement) does not intend him (Jesus) to be a human scapegoat. That the murder of Christ was not supposed to happen, it was evil overtaking good (until the resurrection). I also think it means that humans don't understand their sinful nature, their separation from God...they can't really ever totally know how horrible their sins truly are because they don't know what it's like to be one with God. At the same time, of course those who killed him KNEW what they were doing was horrible and hideous.

That's what I am trying to say. The church doesn't totally understand Jesus or his life, because it's not easy to understand. It wasn't meant to be easy to understand. NOt because Jesus wanted to be confusing...it's almost like the things Jesus conveys have like shifting dimensions, shifting layers...that's the only way I can explain it.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
I don't think the church has Jesus all figured out.

Jesus spoke in parables, because the things he was trying to convey were meant to be mysterious and puzzled over and seen from many angles--there are many layers of depth to


Two problems:

1. This goes against our principle of Statement Analysis: the subject's intention to communicate is presupposed

2. Jesus, Himself, said why He spoke in parables, which makes the Anonymous statement a little bit more interesting! It is complex, but it is intended for two specific audiences with designed purpose.

Pop Quiz:

Can anyone report why Jesus spoke in parables?

Peter

PS: Anonymous, interesting post.

others: respectful discussion!


Tania:


tania cadogan said...


If Jesus existed and he was crucified as claimed, why are there no roman records given that he was the Jewish messiah?




*Do you really want to ask why something does not exist?**

That is your first mistake. In analysis, we do not deal with the infinite number of answers of that which does not exist.

Your second mistake is more obvious: false assertion.

This speaks to personal bias whereas a little bit of research would have kept you from such assertion, but as to asking a question in the negative, I can't help you on that one. You once claimed the Bible was "filled with errors" of "those pesky number 3's" of which not only fails to understand Mark McClish' research, and Scriptural record itself, but also seeks to use Statement Analysis for personal bias, attempting to make a principle fit a narrative. A major "no no" in analysis.

You do not have to hold to faith regarding Jesus to avoid error here. You just need research and the self awareness to recognize what happens when we attempt to twist analysis to fit opinion.

Professional analysts let the truth guide us. They step back, they lose 'investment', they just 'don't care', but accept truth.

With bias comes failure in analysis. You'd struggle terribly with Avinoam Sapir's Linguistic Archeology which is tough to grasp anyway, but if you go into it with bias, you'll miss the many treasures that await you.

I would not want that to happen to our favorite Hobnob!

Consider my own personal belief system and my analysis of the Amanda Blackburn case as an example. I was aware of how analysis would give license to some to ridicule to Christianity, itself, but the truth is the truth and we let it "fall upon us", breaking us, rather than us trying to break it.

Peter

Anonymous said...

ha! i was just thinking that according to the same logic, Santa Claus has been written about so much, that he must be real.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter,

Thank you for telling me my post was interesting!

I see what you are saying about Jesus's parables in light of SA...he intended to convey a concrete meaning. Maybe like a poem...where the meaning is concrete but yet it must somehow be a meaning realized in the reader's heart?

I asked someone just now if he knows why Jesus spoke in parables, and he said that it was to bypass people's hardened hearts so they could hear and understand the truth and he thinks it's because if Jesus tried to explain what he was saying in regular language that it might be too complicated to understand. (?) I don't know if that is the correct answer.

But yes, interesting discussion! Very thought-provoking!

Peter Hyatt said...

Anon,

Have some fun researching. Jesus made a plain statement. He was asked, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" and answered.

Also, there were not a great deal of Roman historians publishing books online in the first century.

However, we do have:

Flavius Josephus.

His writings are fascinating and he addresses Christ, Christianity, and as you can guess, the bloodshed, the secular viewpoint, etc.

This does not validate anything other than a historical account other than the ancient writings of those who believed Christ, which was the question posed.

************************************************

Readers recognize that I don't let error go unanswered, but I am particularly concerned when anyone seeks to use the science of Statement Analysis to prove anything. This butchers, sometimes, brutally, principles that serve us so well, and unless personal bias (narrative) is confronted, it is not worth even entering formal training.

In most seminars, there is always one who has an acute need to prove something near and dear (narrative) and it always ends up in the same dust bin:

absurdity.

This is the end of such, but even as it goes on, and is correct in some places, it is a matter of time until a statement treads upon the narrative and error returns.

Avinoam Sapir is an orthodox Jew, so he holds high regard for the Torah to begin with.

Yet his work on Genesis is not only evenly handled (principle after principle) but the end result is startling. Anyone who reads his book is going to eventually ask the question about Divine inspiration. It is inescapable after seeing how deeply penetrating the analysis is applied.

It is all too much for even this one book to be so scrutinized for centuries and still come out without error, but to go from there to the entire Bible?

How could dozens of people, over hundreds of years, from different languages and cultures all write about anything and come out without error?

It is stunning.

We all will ask, especially as we get older, why am I here? What is my purpose in life?

Some have been mistreated by mankind to the point where they blame God, especially if mistreatment was by one who claims faith. I know this first hand, from boyhood on up.

Others have been mistreated by their fellow man and it is really difficult to overcome such embittering and humiliating experiences.

yet, most of us recognize that we, ourselves, are not the final arbitrator of truth, nor write from wrong. If our rights come from man, man can revoke them.

Also, should we consider that our purpose on the earth is to just return to dust after 70 or 80 years here?

Philosophers often honestly envy people of faith, and express this when they get older and are forced to wonder if everything they lived and did in life is without meaning.

Is sexual relations just a biological itch to be scratched?

Why did other cultures prize the family?

What has the disintegration of the family produced?

What has it cost us?

ugh! Too much for one brain to handle!

Whether one holds to faith or not is immaterial in the sense that I hoped people would read Edwards' account from a criminal perspective yet the conversations here are most interesting to read even though they've strayed off topic.

Anonymous, once you see the answer to the question, the exciting thing to ask is

Why?

Peter

Anonymous said...

Thank you Peter, That is fascinating that Jesus actually explained to his disciples why he spoke in parables. I will look that up to see what he says. I was not the same anon who seems to be doubting the existence of God or the story of Jesus, but I do enjoy thinking about theological questions and this is the most interesting discussion as well as thought-provoking discussion I've had about these issues. I have so many questions about Jesus...he is certainly a figure who becomes more and more fascinating the more you learn about him.

As far as the issue of Christ's death, there are certain events surrounding it also which I feel have some meaning, such as when Jesus heals the Roman soldier's ear after one of his disciples cuts it off with his sword...interesting that he was healing in such powerful ways even those who were taking him to his death and while he was under such duress.

Sometimes I wonder about his healing abilities in general, I wonder about his humanity (his human side), I wonder about so many things and it is wonderful to have a place where others also discuss these things (even those who doubt), all contributing to a thought-provoking discussion.

Thank you, and I will read the explanation Jesus gives regarding the parables!

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous, choose a name!

I will give you another hint or two to help...

*If you are familiar with the Amanda Blackburn murder, Christ's answer is not fitting in with Davey's "jesus"


I'll post it next. It is stunning.

I used the 'olde English' of the KJV, but this is my choice. I recommend analysts not only familiarize themselves with it, but with Shakespeare's works as well. (The No Fear Shakespeare series, in spite of being a loose translation, is a lot of fun to read!)

It causes the reader to slow down to 'translate' the word.

The richness of the language is evident in both, but the decline of language today is also highlighted by the absence of beauty.

This pattern of slowing down and almost 'learning a new language' is a habitual pattern invaluable to Statement Analysis. Even those who call themselves non religious benefit from these readings.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

1The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side. 2And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

3And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; 4And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: 5Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: 6And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: 8But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. 9Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The Purpose of Jesus' Parables
(Mark 4:10-12)

10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

***********

He is now teaching them in parables so that they won't get it. This was predicted of Him MORE THAN 700 years earlier! Here, the author, Matthew, cites this specifically from the ancient writing (8th century BC).

Imagine seeing predictions that are 800 years old and fulfilled, one after another after another, perfectly, including some that were not even understood at the time they were written.

Here it continues with the 'commentary' on the actual question and answer Christ gave. It is definitely not something that fits into many people's philosophy, but this is the point of analysis; we don't care. We just get to the truth. If this is what He said, we thus deal with the statement. We do not try to make the statement fit OUR belief.

Analysts who broaden themselves like this do very well. I am reading "No Fear Shakespeare" and am loving it so much, I intend to go through the series as time allows. I read Hamlet yesterday, perhaps for the first time since high school, and am blown away by its beauty! Having the 'paraphrasing' on the right page with the text on the left is great. What happens is that the reader (especially an analyst!) will use the right side less and less as he goes on.

Having to pause to define a word is of great value, but it does not end there!

Next, having to pause for just the understanding of a word that you know its definition broadens the analysts' minds!



14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter, This is a very interesting discussion and I am learning a lot!

You wrote

The Purpose of Jesus' Parables
(Mark 4:10-12)

"10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

***********

He is now teaching them in parables so that they won't get it. This was predicted of Him MORE THAN 700 years earlier! Here, the author, Matthew, cites this specifically from the ancient writing (8th century BC)."

This is mind-blowing...so Jesus taught in parables so that they wouldn't understand?! This is stunning...but yet makes sense because although I try to be smart, it didn't really seem like the parables were very easy to understand or made much sense!!! I just assumed that they must! It's really fascinating, and the passage you provided explains why he did this:

"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

If I'm understanding correctly, maybe if their hearts were hardened, any genuine wisdom or explanations Jesus could have said to them in plain language would be worthless because they would not see with he was saying with their heart, or, worse, have the effect of falsely convince them that they understood although they did not, and so he told them parables to simply confuse them...giving them at least the possibility of finally "understanding with the heart". It's extremely interesting!

I will get the Shakespeare version you recommend...Hamlet is a beautiful play, as well as I would like to reread Othello...I read these in college but would very much like to reread the plays having gained a little additional life wisdom and knowledge! I love the Shakespearean English as well as Middle English...I love Old English as well but can not speak or read it at all! But I love the sound of it...it is amazing how well earlier versions of English were perfect for story-telling aloud and the language had a magical beauty to it, which I admit, to a great extent, is missing in our modern version. I think in some ways our modern English language is very puritanical, like whittled down to bare basics over time, and there is more of a careful beauty to it now, quite different from the gorgeous earlier versions of the language.
Enjoy your Shakespeare! I loved when you analyzed some of "Romeo and Juliet" on the blog--I would love to see other Shakespeare scenes analyzed if anything catches your eye! It is also fascinating to learn that information about the parables...another intriguing aspect of Jesus himself that he would take that approach to those whose hearts were hardened, ultimately in some way to help them open their hearts!


mom2many said...

I know this thread is a few weeks old, but I can't resist. I don't see a sufficient answer to the question of Jesus' betrayal. I also have some information about Jesus' sacrifice that might be illuminating.

As Peter always says, we cannot fully understand without entering the language, nor without entering into the socio-political climate in which the many texts of Scripture were compiled.

To Judas betrayal, one first needs to understand what role most Hebrews thought the Messiah would play. They believed he would be a political redeemer, who would gather Israel up and bring about their political freedom from all these conquerors they had experienced over millenia. They thought he would bring military triumph! Instead, Judas began to see that Jesus was not going to fulfill those things. He was going to die a political prisoner, and his followers with him. He was not going to taste glory as a confidante of the Messiah-king. The Scriptures paint Judas as a thief. He was the treasurer of the group. He stole from the treasury all along. When the woman anointed Jesus' feet from her precious alabaster jar, he was the one who demanded its sale and the money put into the treasury "for the poor," -- poor Judas. Judas turns from Jesus at the end of the John 6 discourse on the bread of life. Not only is Jesus a political disappointment, but he was asking them to engage in cannibalism. Most turned from Jesus at this point. He did not persuade them to stay, note. He could have explained the symbolism, were it a symbol. But no, the bread of life is literal flesh. Judas betrayed because he felt betrayed, first. I also believe that he felt if he backed Jesus into a corner, Jesus would be forced to reveal himself as the Messiah-king Judas believed he was. In a perverse way, he was helping. He returned the silver and killed himself because his plan failed.

Why did Jesus die? The single most important passage to keep in mind is Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. Isaac is said to have been a man in his 30s in Jewish tradition. He was at least old enough to carry wood enough to burn up a human being on his back. He knew that they were missing the sacrificial animal. He was still following his father in faith, and was a willing victim. What did God provide? A Ram. Not a lamb. This should be regarded as an incomplete sacrifice. What did John the Baptist proclaim when Jesus arrived to be baptized? "Behold, the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." God sounds from heaven, "Behold my son, in whom I am well pleased." These phrases echo Abraham and Isaac, and point the trajectory of Jesus ministry. He would lay down his life to fulfill the sacrifice that God instructed Abraham to offer, so that we could be in communion with God again.

If you are interested in Biblical linguistics and the historical background of the Scriptures, I highly recommend the radio program Father Simon Says on Relevant radio. He delves into the original languages, history, culture as well as occasional modern Jewish perspectives. I find it enlightening. You can access it on the internet, the podcast, the Relevant Radio app, as well as a local Relevant Radio affiliate.

Anonymous said...

Mom2somany,

That's interesting that you feel that Judas betrayed Jesus because he himself felt betrayed, and also that you feel that he felt that in a perverse way that he was helping Jesus. The philosopher Slavoj Zizek believes something similar-- that Judas was in fact, the most "loyal" disciple, that his "betrayal" was in fact the greatest loyalty or something like that...I read that in some book he wrote on Christianity...I get what he is saying, and it's something that must be contemplated...you are saying something similar...but you are adding motive also that Judas betrayed because he felt betrayed...you could be closer to the truth...as a child hearing the story, I remember feeling bad for Judas that what he had done had hurt himself so deeply to the core that he immediately went and hung himself...right, like he acted impulsively over perhaps feeling betrayed himself...

Anonymous said...

I just googled Slavoj Zizek and watched a few minutes of this video called "Zizek Defends Christianity"...I don't understand the political stuff he talks about,,,but actually at 2:05 I thought it was interesting he touches upon the "Father Why Have You Forsaken Me?" quote that Jesus said...and Zizek says that in Christianity is the only time that you have for a moment, God himself becoming an atheist...when Jesus says "Father Why Have Your Forsaken Me?" I don't know much else about his views on atheism and don't understand the political stuff he talks about but I did read one of his books about Christianity...it is thought-provoking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpRqxKbgF8

Anonymous said...

Mom2many, Thats interesting how you mention Judas turning away from Jesus during the Bread Of Life thing...I think you are right...he was rejecting something...maybe like you said he himself felt somehow betrayed...or something...

Anonymous said...

Also, to return to what Peter had asked in terms of viewing this through a lense of criminology, as a child it made sense to me that Judas acted based on greed, based on the fact that he simply wanted the money. As an adult, I feel more skeptical that this could have been his motive, however, there is an element I feel I understood correctly as a child, that Judas, despite loving Jesus, was an incredibly frail human, who simply wanted the money. It is hard to reconcile these two things...impossible even...yet as a child it seemed believable that Judas just did something incredibly stupid. As an adult, I can't quite believe it. But in keeping with that, that perhaps Judas's motive was mainly greed, it is compelling to also look at the fact that Judas turned away during the Bread of Life ceremony...in that moment he rejected Jesus and what he was offering...did he turn away in disgust, in disappointment, in a feeling of betrayal? One thing is sure, he felt severe regret almost immediately after he did what he did.