63 But Jesus said not a word. And the high priest said to him, I put you on oath, by the living God, that you will say to us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Matthew 26:63
Commentary on Matthew 26:57-68
(Read Matthew 26:57-68)
Jesus was hurried into Jerusalem. It looks ill, and bodes worse, when those who are willing to be Christ’s disciples, are not willing to be known to be so. Here began Peter’s denying him: for to follow Christ afar off, is to begin to go back from him. It is more our concern to prepare for the end, whatever it may be, than curiously to ask what the end will be. The event is God’s, but the duty is ours. Now the Scriptures were fulfilled, which said, False witnesses are risen up against me. Christ was accused, that we might not be condemned; and if at any time we suffer thus, let us remember we cannot expect to fare better than our Master. When Christ was made sin for us, he was silent, and left it to his blood to speak. Hitherto Jesus had seldom professed expressly to be the Christ, the Son of God; the tenor of his doctrine spoke it, and his miracles proved it; but now he would not omit to make an open confession of it. It would have looked like declining his sufferings. He thus confessed, as an example and encouragement to his followers, to confess him before men, whatever hazard they ran. Disdain, cruel mocking, and abhorrence, are the sure portion of the disciple as they were of the Master, from such as would buffet and deride the Lord of glory. These things were exactly foretold in the fiftieth chapter of Isaiah. Let us confess Christ’s name, and bear the reproach, and he will confess us before his Father’s throne.
Historical Jesus scholars are quite capable of discerning when a saying of Jesus has been made up by a Gospel author for narrative effect. But when they explain why other sayings are not likewise fabricated, but are traceable to a real Jesus, I think they are jumping the rails of straight consistent logic.
If a saying is integral to the flow and liveliness of the story, such as “Who touched me?”, “Hold out your hand”, “Pick up your mat and go home”, “Get up”, then it can safely be judged as “suitable only for the occasion . . . not particularly memorable . . . not aphorisms or parables, and would not have circulated independently during the oral period.” (p. 62 of The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus)
But isn’t there something inconsistent or arbitrary about this explanation?
Sure, I can fully accept that a narrator will manufacture words to be put into any character’s mouth for the effect of adding a touch of life to the story.
But when the scholar declares a more formal saying, such as a parable or aphorism, is different, and by its nature is potentially traceable to the historical Jesus, are we not being a tad arbitrary?
The Gospel author is, after all, not simply narrating a series of little anecdotes with their “Get ups” and “Go forths” and “Feed them” touches. He is also telling the story of a divine man who came to bring a message and introduce a new kingdom. So are not the parables and aphorisms equally there in the story for the purpose of making the story work? Aren’t they even moreso designed to bring the speaking character into the consciousness of the readers?
Of course parables and aphorisms are, by simple definition, capable of being lifted out of the story and finding independent applications. That simple fact of their definition does not mean that they are any more likely to have originated from somewhere or someone long before the author penned them.
On what basis is it suggested that “Blessed are the meek” is any less likely to have been creatively put into the mouth of Jesus by the author than “Get up and go home”? Is it only because “Blessed are the meek” is, by simple definition as an aphorism, the sort of thing it is easy to imagine a real Jesus would have said and that people would have passed on in “oral tradition”?
On what basis is it any less likely that aphorisms or parables or special teachings we find in the mouth of Jesus in the Gospels are the creative work of the Gospel author himself?
If we see a similar saying used in other texts, does that make it logically any more or less likely that the saying really came from a historical Jesus? Authors, like musicians, do copy and adapt from their fellows and other literary works.
More to the point, it is worth noting that there are precious few if any sayings clearly attributable to Jesus in any of the NT epistles. Might not this be considered as evidence of a need to create some sayings by the time evangelists decided to write the Gospels?
In other words, is not the whole notion that any Gospel saying might be attributable to “oral tradition” going back to Jesus himself based entirely on the unsupported assumption that there was an “oral tradition” back to the historical Jesus? It is all assumption. There is no contemporary supporting evidence to indicate otherwise.
And attempting to argue that one aphorism is more likely “historical” than another because of its “dissimilarity” to other sayings, or its coherence within the plot of the narrative (usually referred to as the “historical situation”), or its presumed embarrassment for readers and authors who had different perspectives, hardly gets us any closer to a saying’s “authenticity”.
But if its Aramaic form is used?
If a saying is “recorded” in its Aramaic form then all we have is evidence that a competent author knows how to use an unusual expression to enhance its literary effect. This was a device known to Aristotle, and Aristotle was a mentor of many a Greek writer:
A diction that is made up of strange (or rare) terms is a jargon. A certain infusion, therefore, of these elements is necessary to style; for the strange (or rare) word, the metaphorical, the ornamental, and the other kinds above mentioned, will raise it above the commonplace and mean . . . (Poetics, XXII)
We have thousands of words attributed to Socrates, but I think few scholars believe any of them in Plato or Xenophon are “authentic”.
We have many words attributed to Julius Caesar (one of his most memorable lines was the topic of my previous post) but again I suspect that few scholars would be prepared to bet their houses that any of them are historically reliable data.
Even if we had as much evidence to suggest Jesus was as real as “any other person in history”, we will still have to grapple with the nature of the Gospels as literature before presuming they can be mined for historical nuggets.
I hope in some future posts to explore this with specific references to particular “sayings of Jesus”.
The following two tabs change content below.
- Bio
- Latest Posts
Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
Question:
Please help me to understand this apparent contradiction. Jesus said that we must observe every detail of the commandments and precepts of the law of Moses. Jesus said in Matthew 5:19: ” Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” So why do we Christians not observe every command and precept of the law of Moses like Jesus said? Why did Paul and many first Christians abolish circumcision, dietary laws, the Jewish sabbath, animal sacrifices and many other precepts of the law? Some Christians in the first century rejected the apostle Paul and the Christians who did agree with the council of Jerusalem because they said that Jesus supported every precept of the law of Moses and so Paul and the first council in Jerusalem were in contradiction with the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:19 . Is there a contradiction between the words of Jesus (Matthew 5:19) and the decision of the council of Jerusalem and the teaching of Paul? Thank you for helping me in my christian life.
Answer:
You state that “Jesus said that we must observe every detail of the commandments and precepts of the law of Moses.” If “we” are observant Jews before the death of Jesus and the opening of the New Covenant and salvation in Jesus, then your statement would be correct. However, you and I are not Jews under the Old Covenant. Jesus was speaking to Jews under the Old Covenant in this scene from Matthew 5. It is true that not a word of the Law of Moses was abolished by Jesus, but instead, as Jesus says in this passage, “I have not come to abolish the Law of the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law of Moses so that we do not have to. Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses in several senses of the word “fulfill.” He fulfilled the law of Moses in that he was the only human being to perfectly obey all aspects of the law at all times. His was the only perfect life. He met all the requirements of the law of Moses so that we do not have to ourselves. He fulfilled the law of Moses in that he took on himself the penalty of the law on those who did not obey it perfectly. As God had said in Leviticus 18:5, “for the person who obeys them [the law] will live by them.” The problem is that no one fully obeyed the law of Moses. Jesus came so that we could live by faith and under grace. He freed us from the obligation of the law. We find this in Colossians 2:13-15 and in Galatians 5:1. The law did not set people free, but Jesus set us free. Like it says in Colossians 2:14, through Jesus we are free of indebtedness or obligation to the law. Later, in Colossians 2:16-17 Paul specifically tells us that we are not to be judged by the things in the law of Moses, such as Sabbaths and New Moons. He tells us that these things, like all of the law of Moses, were a mere shadow of the things we have in Christ. Jesus also fulfilled the law of Moses (back to Matthew 5:19) in that his life and ministry were a fulfillment of the things merely suggested by the shadows in the Old Covenant. In Hebrews 10:1 we are told that the law of Moses was a shadow of the good things that are found in Christ. The Hebrew writer tells us that as of the time he wrote, the Old Covenant was “obsolete and outdated and will soon disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13) I have written a book on this topic titled “From Shadow to Reality” (available at www.ipibooks.com).
Therefore, we Christians are not required to observe the commandments in the Law of Moses. We are not obligated to make sin offerings or guilt offerings. We do not have to kill bulls or goats and offer their blood for our sins. We do not have to see Levitical priests about our skin diseases and we are free to eat all kinds of food (as proved by Mark 7:19). It was not Paul who abolished the requirement of circumcision. It was Jesus whose sacrifice nailed the obligation of law to the cross (Colossians 2:15). It is non merely Paul’s opinion that circumcision is not required (Galatians 3:23-25. 5:11-12 and many other passages in Galatians). It was not Paul who rejected the requirement of dietary obligations, it was God who did, as proved by Acts 10:9-16 and dozens of other passages.
It is true that some Judaizing Christians rejected the decision of the Jerusalem Council, but this was an error. It was those who tried to force the law of Moses on Gentiles who were in opposition to Matthew 5:19, as Jesus said that he fulfilled the requirements of the law of Moses, but they rejected this teaching of Jesus. Jesus said that he fulfilled the law, but these Judaizing Christians did not agree. This is the clear teaching, not just of Paul, but of Jesus, of Peter, of the writer of Hebrews and other New Testament writers.
My answer is, no, there is no contradiction between the things written in the Council of Jerusalem and what Jesus said in Matthew 5:19. This agreement was accepted by Peter and the other apostles, as well as by James, the brother of Jesus. It was those who tried to force non-Jews to obey the Law of Moses who were in error. Like Paul said in Romans 7:13, the purpose of the law of Moses was not so that by following it we could be made righteous, but that “through the commandment, sin might become utterly sinful.” In other words, the law showed us how sinful we are and how desperately we needed another means to come to God, which is through the death of Jesus as a sacrifice for our sins. We are no longer under the Law, and thank Jesus for that.
John Oakes
What Jesus Really said: «I am NOT God»
A common question that has been a point of dispute between Muslims and Christians throughout history is: “Is Jesus God?”. Muslims believe he is not God, but a prophet. Christians say that he is God. Now as there is a dispute, there must be a judge to solve this dispute. The judge here is Jesus himself, what did Jesus say in the Bible?
Jesus (Peace be upon him) never said that he is God, the Quran says:
And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besidesAllah ?’” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen. 117. I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. 118. If You should punish them – indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them – indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise. (Holy Quran 5:116-118)
Taking Mary as a god is what the Catholics do concerning the belief in veneration and intercession of Mary, since they pray to her and believe that she can benefit them, we as Muslims consider this as idolatry even if they didn’t say that she is a god. In addition, there was an early Christian sect who was worshiping Mary in Arabia which was called Collyridianism.
God is neither a man nor the son of man
The Bible itself (despite interpolation) testifies that Jesus (Peace be upon him) said that the Father is the only God, and that Jesus is a human being, the Old Testament says:
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent:
While Jesus (Peace be upon him) says that he is a man and a son of man:
John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God: this did not Abraham.
Jesus kept on telling that he is the son of man as in Luke 17:22, 7:34, and in many other verses.
The Father is the only true God
Besides Jesus kept on telling that only the Father is God:
John 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said,“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Jesus says that the Father is the only true God. Actually if he said “God” instead of Father in verse 1 (the bolded word), this wouldn’t have been a proof that the Father is the only God, because God could have meant the whole Trinity. By using the word Father, Jesus clearly states that the Father is the only true God, thus excluding the son and the Holy Spirit.
And consider Jesus’ word “this is the eternal life”. Jesus didn’t say that the eternal life is that he is God who came in flesh or that he is the second person in the Trinity, or that he is the Savior who came to be crucified for the sin of Adam. It is simply that the Father is the only God, and that Jesus was sent by God.
The Father is God of Jesus
Also in other verses, Jesus refers to Father as his God, which clearly means that Jesus is not God, and can’t be interpreted by the human nature because the human nature is supposed to be God also:
John 20:16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
Mark 12:28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Jesus lacks the attributes of God
Jesus explicitly says that the Father is greater than him, which means that he is not equal to God:
John 14:28″You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
This actually addresses what Paul said in Philippians that Jesus is equal to God, Jesus answers him saying that the Father is greater than him.
Jesus is not more than a teacher, a prophet, he is NOT God:
Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Messiah.
Jesus doesn’t know the hour
Mark 13:32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
God is omniscient, He knows everything, and Jesus refers this to the Father. The Father is the only one who knows the hour neither Jesus nor the angels know anything about it. If Jesus doesn’t know the hour, then he is not omniscient, and since God is omniscient, then Jesus is not God.
Is Jesus omnipotent?
Jesus answers:
John 5:30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
God is not only omniscient, but also omnipotent. God can do everything. This is God whom both Muslims and Christians believe in. Jesus here denies his omnipotence, but refers it to the Father, and this is an answer to what Christians say that the signs and works Jesus made prove that he is God, Jesus here answers this claim saying: “By myself I can do nothing”. In addition, Jesus needs an angel to strengthen him:
Luke 22:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.
God is the Creator; He created everything, including angels. If Jesus is God, and he created everything, why shall he need one of his creatures to strengthen him? Is the creature stronger than the Creator? Let’s think about it!
Christians shall say that Jesus actually said that he is God, the article did Jesus really say “I am God”? shall discuss this in detail and shall prove that Jesus never said that he is God.
This post is also available in: French Spanish
Share this:
Related Pages
Chaos Frank tries to explain the Gospel…
Francis says Words of Jesus Christ are not the Word of God
For his Sunday Angelus address yesterday, Mar. 6, “Pope” Francis (Jorge Bergoglio) made a remark that is nothing short of heretical, at least implicitly, for he insinuated that Jesus Christ is not God.
It is possible he did so inadvertently; but before we examine that, let us look at the full Scripture passage on which the false pope was commenting, which was the Gospel reading for the First Sunday of Lent:
And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the desert, for the space of forty days; and was tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing in those days; and when they were ended, he was hungry. And the devil said to him: If thou be the Son of God, say to this stone that it be made bread. And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God. And the devil led him into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time; and he said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them. If thou therefore wilt adore before me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answering said to him: It is written: Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and he said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself from hence. For it is written, that He hath given his angels charge over thee, that they keep thee. And that in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. And Jesus answering, said to him: It is said: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. And all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from him for a time.
(Luke 4:1-13)
In his efforts to “explain” this pericope during his Angelus address, Francis said:
And I would like to emphasize something. Jesus does not converse with the devil: he never conversed with the devil. Either he banished him, when he healed the possessed, or in this case, when he has to respond, he does so with the Word of God, never with his own word [lo fa con la Parola di Dio, mai con la sua parola]. Brothers and sisters, never enter into dialogue with the devil: he is more cunning than we are. Never! Cling to the Word of God like Jesus, and at most answer always with the Word of God. And on this path, we will never go wrong.
(Antipope Francis, Angelus Address, Mar. 6, 2022; underlining added.)
It should be immediately evident to any Catholic what the problem is here: Jesus Christ is God, wherefore His own Words are necessarily the Word of God. In fact, He Himself is the Word of God, as St. John the Evangelist tells us:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(John 1:1-5,14)
In other words, for Francis to say that Christ responds with the Word of God and not “with his own word”, is false, since His own Word is God’s very Speaking.
Now the question that presents itself is whether Francis simply made a colossal and embarrassing mistake or whether he was deliberately and maliciously trying to sow the seeds of heresy in the minds of his hapless listeners.
Given Francis’ background as a notorious über-heretic and apostate, and given that he has no qualms about cracking blasphemous jokes about the Holy Trinity, no one can licitly give him the famous “benefit of the doubt”. He forfeited that benefit a long time ago!
However, in the interests of justice, we must point out that Francis’ heretical remarks were uttered by him spontaneously and were apparently not part of the original script for his address. That, at least, is what the video suggests, for when he says the offending words he is not reading the script but looking up as if to improvise (begin at the 8:57 min mark):
Regardless of his intent, however, the objective fact is that Francis implicitly declared that Jesus Christ is not God, since he contrasted Christ’s Word with God’s Word. Denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ is the heresy of Arianism, and it is now part of the public “papal” record, retrievable from the Vatican web site and from YouTube.
While, in this particular instance only, we suspect it is more likely that Francis was just being a colossal moron than a deliberate heretic, either way, he has a moral obligation to set the matter right because, even if this was a mere mistake born of inadvertence, it is incumbent upon him to ensure his words are always accurate and orthodox, and do not lend themselves to the spreading of heresy.
EPIC FAIL.
Image source: composite with elements from YouTube (screenshot) and Shutterstock (Miti74)
License: fair use and paid