"Why We Should Choose Science over Beliefs"... Really?

I subscribe to Scientific American; I enjoy keeping up on the latest scientific advances. At the same time, I can't help but notice an anti-religious bias among its contributors. The title of my post comes from the "Featured This Week" article in the 9/25/2013 The Weekly Review. To be fair, the author doesn't deal with religion but with his own beliefs, which he describes as libertarian. He describes how facts changed his views on climate change and gun control. As far as climate change, I too changed my position as new facts became available. I also agree with him, in general, that refusing to alter one's beliefs when clear, established facts contradict them is not a good policy. I have changed a number of my core beliefs about the Bible and what it teaches as I studied over the years. Fortunately, nothing I have learned has hurt my faith; if anything, my faith is stronger from having coldly analyzed a number of issues and changed my beliefs. The reason is that the facts support my core belief in the God of the Bible.

I didn't start this post because of what the author said in his article. He pulled the age-old bait and switch, implying that he was going to discuss a very fraught subject and then wimping out. IMHO, the article itself didn't rate "Featured This Week" status; it didn't say anything except the obvious: we should be open to changing our minds.

The title, however, really gets my attention. The implication is that Science trumps Religion, and that anyone who has religious beliefs is willfully ignoring the cold, hard facts. If that were true, I would renounce my faith immediately. But, I want to look at the flip side. What happens when people base their world-view only on "Science", with no other beliefs allowed?

The first thing that has to go is that humans have some special value. According to science, we are nothing more than animals that are exceptionally clever. We have no souls and no special place in the world. Survival of the fittest should drive our beliefs; our primary goal should be to produce offspring and to ensure that our offspring grow up to do the same.

If this is true, then

• There is no fundamental equality among humans and between the sexes; measurable attributes such as strength, intelligence, and health make some superior to others
• The weak should not be protected; society should actively eliminate the weak to conserve resources and improve the gene pool
• War should not be avoided; war is the natural expression of competition for resources

Sparta successfully employed this system of beliefs for centuries. They discarded imperfect newborns and thinned the ranks of their children through potentially fatal training. The Nazis in Germany, actively (and gruesomely) exercised these beliefs. The Germans failed only because Hitler repeatedly made irrational decisions.

I have to agree that, based on this reasoning and the outcomes for those who practiced it, if I wanted to live like an animal, this would be the way to do it. Scientifically, the idea of "Crimes Against Humanity" is completely empty.

However, I find the Spartans barbaric and the Nazis detestable. I can't explain these responses scientifically, but I'm not about to change them. Furthermore, I want to be more than an animal. Deep down inside, I believe that my being extends beyond my physical body. But what about the facts?

Looking back at the history of science, scientists were woefully ignorant about a number of fundamental concepts just 60 years ago. Yes, scientific understanding has exploded since then, but that simply implies that scientists have a lot more to learn. What scientists "know" is still rapidly changing, and there is, no doubt, a great deal that they don't know. In addition, scientists keep uncovering fundamental limits. Einstein's "you can't travel faster than the speed of light" is the best known, but new ones have emerged that are more fundamental. In fact, these limits are so basic that they serve as evidence (not proof) for intelligent design. Bottom line, science knows a lot, but scientists are often unwilling to acknowledge the limitations of what they know, especially when it comes to morality. Looking at some of experiments done in the name of Science in the United States particularly during the 1940's and 50's provides factual warnings against our conscience.

Should we choose Science over our beliefs? Absolutely not. The fact is, some who have taken this route have done horrible things. I am not bashing science or its methods, but blindly using it to make decisions about right and wrong has proven to be a really bad idea.

Don't Tell Anyone!

I love Mark because the author is such a great storyteller. Everything happens "immediately", Jesus is very active and always surrounded by crowds, and Mark adds details that add color to the accounts. I want to share some thoughts on Mark 7.31-37 just because it is a bit zany and informative at the same time.

Again, Jesus left the district of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee up to the middle of the district of the Decapolis.

They brought a man who was deaf and mute to him and begged him to lay his hands on him. Jesus took the man away from the crowd by himself. He placed his fingers in the man's ears and having spat, touched his tongue. Then, looking up into the heavens and sighing, he said to the man, "Ephphatha!" that is, "Be opened!" Immediately, the man's ears opened and the bond on his tongue was loosed, and the man spoke clearly.

Jesus gave them explicit orders that they should speak to no one. But as much as he kept giving them orders, they more abundantly kept proclaiming it. They were exceedingly astounded, saying, "He does everything well! He makes the deaf hear and the dumb speak!"

These events after Jesus returned from the districts around the cities of Tyre and Sidon to the district east of the Sea of Galilee in the area called the Decapolis, or Ten Cities.

As usual in Mark, Jesus has drawn a crowd, and some people bring a man who is deaf and mute to Jesus so that he can lay his hands on him. Normally, Jesus would do just that, and the man would be healed. In this case, however, Jesus takes them aside in private. Next, he goes through a small ritual. He puts his fingers in the man's ears; fortunately, he doesn't lick them first. Then Jesus spat, presumably on his hand, and touched the man's tongue! (I'd be thinking about finding a new doctor.) Finally, Jesus theatrically looked up to the sky, let out a deep sigh, and then ordered the deaf man's ears to be opened. Sure enough, the man was healed, and the people who brought him to Jesus were ecstatic.

Jesus, however, did not share their enthusiasm. He ordered them, at length, to tell no one about what happened. That was their cue to tell everyone who would listen. Apparently, Jesus kept running into them and telling them to keep quiet, which prompted them to talk about him all the more.

For me, all this raises several questions.

Why did Jesus spend so much time outside Jewish territory?

In Mark 7.1, Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem. The Pharisees were a grassroots religious movement among the Jews, and they were the self-appointed maintainers of orthodoxy among the people. The scribes were professional experts in the Jewish Law, and many of them were also Pharisees. Almost all the Pharisees and scribes lived in or around Jerusalem. The Pharisees were divided into two groups, essentially poor and rich. The poor group tended to be more open-minded and lenient, while the rich group tended to be more strict and harsh. Of course, only the rich Pharisees could afford to travel to Galilee to investigate a miracle-working teacher who was suddenly drawing crowds.

Mark describes in some detail how the Pharisees and scribes were not impressed with Jesus' disciples and that Jesus publicly rebuked them in response to their criticisms. In verse 24, Mark says that Jesus got up and went away from there to the district of Tyre, a city-state located along the coast north of Galilee, well outside the Jewish borders. Reading between the lines (and the other gospels, see Matthew 12.14, Luke 11.53-54,) Jesus and his disciples were no longer safe. All the Pharisees really needed to do was to create a disturbance and blame Jesus, and King Herod or the Romans would arrest him and disperse his disciples. The Pharisees had tremendous influence among the Jewish people, even those living in Galilee, so Jesus took his disciples and spent a considerable amount of time outside their reach. Jesus knew there would be a confrontation, but he wanted it to be at the time and the place of his choosing.

What's up with all the theatrics?

In the previous passage, while Jesus was still around Tyre, he cast out a demon long distance. Was all the poking, spitting, and sighing necessary? After all, the people who brought the man had asked for Jesus to lay his hands on him. Jesus was still outside Jewish territory, and the deaf and mute man, as well as those who brought him, most likely had no experience with God. Jesus was sensitive to their lack of understanding, so he went through the motions of things that would seem familiar to them. At the time, saliva was thought to have healing properties, so Jesus' spitting made sense from their perspective.

Why did Jesus command them to keep quiet?

Jesus did many public miracles, and he often used this public service as an opportunity for preaching. However, there were times when Jesus took people aside to heal them and then commanded them not to tell anyone. Apparently, Jesus didn't agree with the adage, "Any publicity is good publicity." In this case, the man who was healed and the people who brought him likely had no idea of who Jesus really was; they may well have viewed him as a Jewish sorcerer. Whatever they were saying about him, it was getting back to Jesus, and he didn't like it.

I get three practicals from this.

• Be patient. Personally, when I know something needs to happen, I want to do it right now. Jesus spent months outside Jewish territory until the time was right to return to Jerusalem and bring the simmering conflict with the religious leaders to a head.
• Be relatable to those who weren't brought up in a church. I know what it is like to go to church knowing nothing about the Bible. I can imagine the disciples staring when Jesus looked up in the sky and sighed (they knew better than to laugh.)
• Serve without an agenda. Public service can be a great opportunity for witness, but that's not the main reason to do it. Jesus knew that healing that man would cause problems, but he did it anyway.

Should We Harmonize the Gospels?

One of the most interesting, and potentially problematic, aspects of the New Testament is that it provides four separate accounts of Jesus' ministry. By the mid-second century, the churches agreed that there exactly four accepted gospels, and opponents of Christianity were studying them intently to find inconsistencies. Justin Martyr, an early defender of Christianity, responded by harmonizing the gospels, especially the first three, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Essentially, this meant smoothing over and explaining away the inconsistencies to produce one, consistent account. His disciple, Tatian, took this one step further by creating the Diatessaron, which means "Through Four", which blends the texts of the four gospels into one account. This churches in Syria used this "harmony" for around 200 years, until a broad crackdown aimed at unifying all the churches banned it. While Tatian's solution is a bit extreme, Christian defenders have continued to rely on unifying the gospel accounts or otherwise explaining away inconsistencies in the face of criticism. I see two problems with this approach. First, some of the explanations create more problems than the inconsistencies that they address. Here are three examples.

• Jesus cleared the temple. However John places this event at the beginning of Jesus ministry, creating an inconsistency. Solution, Jesus cleared the temple twice.
• While Jesus was eating at the house of a man named Simon, a woman came and poured out expensive perfume on Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. However, Luke places this event in the middle of Jesus' ministry, rather than at the end. Solution, two different women poured out perfume on Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair.
• Matthew and Luke each record Jesus preaching a sermon, both sermons start with stylized statements, "Blessed are the poor..." and cover similar topics. However, the wording in each sermon is different, resulting in different messages. Solution, Jesus preached two separate sermons.

While each explanation is possible by itself, taken together, the "two of everything" approach sounds phony while doing nothing to address the inconsistencies. Second, what if the original authors were aware of the inconsistencies and didn't care about them, or even created them intentionally? By smoothing everything over, we would then miss the intentions of the original authors while misrepresenting their works. In other words, we in danger of missing the message while making false statements about the Bible. However, is this possible? Would Luke intentionally take Matthew's Sermon On The Mount and rewrite it, changing the focus from righteousness to social justice? Personally, I think that is quite possible. There were thirteen apostles (the original twelve, minus Judas Iscariot, plus Matthias, plus Paul) preaching their own versions of the gospel, based on their own personal experiences of Jesus. Assuming Matthew wrote first and that Luke used Matthew as a source, there is no reason that Luke would feel compelled to treat it as set in stone, as we would today. Luke was not recording Matthew's view of the gospel, he was recording Paul's. The fact he chose to use Matthew as a source at all shows that he, and everyone else, already held it in high regard. IMHO, we should stop viewing the inconsistencies in the four gospels as flaws that need to be explained away. The combined leadership of the early Church had to be aware of them, and yet they insisted that there were indeed four different gospel accounts of equal authority, in spite of the attacks their position caused. If these inconsistencies were really a problem, they could easily have declared Matthew, which was the most widely used gospel of the early Church, as THE gospel and relegated the others to secondary status. According to Luke, this happened to many other written gospels. As far as the inconsistencies, here are a few suggestions.

• Ignore them. Most of the inconsistencies are either contrived or trivial. Most attempts to explain them make them sound worse than they are.
• Look at each gospel individually. The authors were providing a unique perspectives, and we should honor them rather than trying to eliminate them.
• For really advanced study, look at how each author was influenced by his peers. Unfortunately, this requires agreeing on when and why each author wrote, and that subject is disputed. On the other hand, this level of study isn't essential.

Someone Buy John A Calendar!

New Testament skeptics have been nitpicking at since, well, since the early Church started saying that certain books were scripture. The church standardized on the four gospels, and only the four, early in the second century, and critical philosophers immediately began examining them in-depth, looking for "contradictions". In Acts 17.21, Luke does say that they had too much time on their hands. John's gospel contains two glaring "contradictions". First, he places the event in which Jesus clears the sellers from the temple precincts from the last week of Jesus' life to the beginning of his ministry. Second, he has Jesus dying on the day before, not the day of, the Passover. How could John make two such egregious "mistakes"?

IMHO, Matthew wrote around 42, Luke around 60, and Mark around 68. John wrote sometime around 80. I don't see any way John was unaware of what the others wrote, nor do I think that John was simply careless. I see only two reasonable explanations.

• John deliberately contradicted the other gospels
• John deliberately misstated the chronology of events to make other points

If the former is true, then that points to tremendous disunity among the Apostles and brings into question the integrity of the accounts. This is the line that many critics take. One response is that Jesus cleared the temple twice. Maybe, but I find it hard to believe the chief priests allowed that to happen twice, especially near the Passover both times, and it doesn't answer the issue that John has Jesus dying a day early. Personally, I don't see any way to dance around this, if John did indeed contradict the others.

The second option seems a bit ridiculous on the surface. We would have to believe that John moved two major events in Jesus' ministry and expected his readers to understand the symbolic significance. If this is the case, then we should be explain clearly why John did this, why he would expect his readers to understand, and why he wasn't concerned about the proper order of events. Needless to say, I'm ready to address these three issues, in reverse order.

John wasn't concerned about the order of events because everyone already knew them. The first three gospels spelled out the timing of the events when Jesus made his last trip to Jerusalem in detail. One interesting aspect of John is that it avoids repeating information from the other gospels, but it does provide insight into them. Here are two examples. Why did Peter, Andrew, James, and John suddenly leave their boats to follow Jesus? Because they knew Jesus quite well; in fact, Andrew and John were following John the Baptist when Jesus first appeared. Why did Jesus force the disciples to get into a boat and leave after feeding a huge crowd? Because the crowd wanted to make Jesus king by force. Reading between the lines, the disciples probably thought this was a good idea.

As far as Jesus' last week, John didn't want to repeat the events, but he did want to add his own insights.

Why did John expect people to understand what he was doing when he altered the chronology? He had been telling his version of the gospel for some 50 years, and he was still around to answer questions when it was set down in writing. There was little risk his intent might become a great, unsolved mystery, at least at the time. But what about future generations? Most of the Church's teaching was oral tradition; in fact, written accounts were generally considered of little value compared to a person who had been taught by the Apostles. John undoubtedly relied on this oral tradition to explain what was written.

So, why did John insert these two obvious contradictions? I will look at the clearing of the temple precincts first.

Clearing of the Temple

John's account differs slightly from the other three gospels, but all occur a few days before the Passover, and all involve Jesus driving out merchants from inside the temple precincts. The temple precincts were an enormous, walled, man-made plateau surrounding the sanctuary. The merchants there most likely were selling sacrificial animals and exchanging common currency for the specific coins required for the temple tax and other contributions. We might imagine that the chief priests were somehow connected to the merchant. Having the market inside the temple precincts made sense from a business standpoint, but it hardly seems appropriate for a place of worship.

The Passover was one of three great feasts, and enormous crowds would come to Jerusalem. Ancient accounts probably exaggerate the number of people, but visitors likely outnumbered the 100,000 or so inhabitants of Jerusalem two or three to one. In addition, tens of thousands of lambs would be slaughtered the day before the Passover. Neither the chief priests nor the Romans wanted any sort of a disturbance, such as stampeding animals or very expensive coins scattered all over the ground in the midst of a crowd.

Jesus' actions were so extreme, they demanded a response. Luke says all the Jewish leaders were looking for a way to kill him, but they were afraid the people. Matthew depicts this as a series of deliberate provocations by Jesus, designed to drive the Jewish leaders into a homicidal rage. In fact, that is exactly what happened, at least according to the first three gospels.

I want to take a short side trip before returning to this key point. In John's account, the Jews demand a sign justifying Jesus' actions. Jesus predicts his death and resurrection, saying "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” (NIV) This is important, because this statement, and its proper translation, provide the date of the event.

Herod started re-building the temple precincts in 20-19 B.C.E. The priests demanded that the sanctuary be completed first, and Herod accomplished the sanctuary in one and a half years, so it was completed around 18-17 B.C.E. The temple precincts were completed in eight years, although construction did continue right up the siege of Jerusalem in the 60's. No one could reasonably claim that construction had taken 46 years. Now, this sounds like another inaccuracy in John's account.

Fortunately, the NIV translation (and NKJV, NRSV, NASB) is incorrect on two points. First, Jesus and the Jews are not talking about the temple precincts, they specifically say "sanctuary". (The NASB at least acknowledges this in footnotes.) Also, the traditional translation requires the genitive, but the text uses the dative. It literally reads, "Forty-six years ago this sanctuary was built," Sometimes, it pays to know Greek (and to read scholars like D.A. Carson, who addresses this issue. I didn't make it up.) Why do modern translations not correct this? I'm guessing that translators choose not to make corrections on verses that have some doctrinal implications. The King James Bible is an early source of the error; interestingly, the Latin Vulgate seems to have translated it correctly.

Remembering that there is no year 0, moving ahead 46 years from the start of construction on the temple yields 27-28. This fits nicely with the traditional translation of the text and the idea that this really was the first Passover during Jesus' ministry, but the text simply doesn't say that. Moving ahead from the year the sanctuary was completed yields 29-30. Most likely, Jesus died in 30, so the sanctuary was therefore likely completed in 17 B.C.E. Assuming, of course, that Jesus cleared the temple precincts at the end of his ministry, not the start.

Coming back to the main thread, the first three gospels point to the clearing of the temple precincts as one key events that the drove the religious leaders to kill Jesus. Why would John want to move it? The best answer I've heard is that John wanted to minimize it so he could present his own theory on what motivated the the religious leaders. By moving this key event to the beginning of Jesus' ministry and ignoring the other events that went with it, John created an opening in his account for another key event that was overlooked by the first three gospels.

The key event John emphasizes is Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead in chapter 11. Starting in verse 47, John describes how the chief priests and Pharisees held a council and made a pact to kills Jesus. Note that this event occurred well before the Passover, and Jesus retreated to Ephraim in the northern part of Israel. The first three gospels say that Jesus actually went even further north to Sidon and Tyre, outside of Israel completely. John then rejoins the first three gospels in describing how Mary anointed Jesus with costly perfume, but Lazarus is guest of honor at the dinner. John then describes how Jesus rode a donkey in Jerusalem, but he claims that many people came out to see Jesus because of Lazarus.

Day of Jesus' Death

The first three gospels clearly state that Jesus died on the Passover day. Passover started at sundown, when each family gathered to eat a ritual meal of whole roast lamb, and this was the meal that is known as The Lord's Supper (see Matthew 26.17.) After the meal, Jesus went out to pray, was betrayed by Judas Iscariot and arrested by the chief priests in the middle of the night, handed over to Pilate early in the morning, and crucified around 9:00 AM (Mark 15.25.) The daytime portion of Passover was also called the Day of Preparation, because the following day was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and all yeast had to be removed from every house.

John starts subtly altering this timeline in chapter 13 by stating that the Lord's Supper occurred before the Passover. According to John, it was an ordinary evening meal. In chapter 18.28, John claims the Jewish leaders would not enter the building where Pilate was staying because they wanted to eat the Passover, implying openly it was that night, not the night before. The Jewish leaders would avoid going in the building under any circumstances, as they considered it defiled, but John is now openly changing the timeline. In 19.14, after Pilate decreed that Jesus be crucified, John openly says it the preparation day for the Passover, moreover, it is around noon. According to John, Jesus was not crucified until the early afternoon.

In 19.31, John contradicts himself. Jesus had died, and the Jewish leaders want the body off the cross. John states that it is the preparation day, and the next day is a Sabbath. Passover was not a Sabbath; however, the day after the Passover, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, was a special Sabbath. This is the Sabbath to which John is referring. Oops...

What is John getting at by moving Jesus' death to the afternoon before the Passover? At that exact time, every year, tens of thousands of Passover lambs were sacrificed on the altar in front of the sanctuary. During the time of Moses, the blood of the Passover lambs had saved the Israelites during the plague of the firstborn, where every firstborn son in Egypt died. In chapter 1.29, John the Baptist says, "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!'" (NIV). John had previously written The Revelation, which frequently uses the lamb imagery to refer to Jesus, as in chapter 5.6, "Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain" (NIV).

Conclusion

We might complain that John's approach would receive low marks on a paper for history class. Apparently, John didn't care; he wasn't writing a paper for history class. If anything, he was creating a collage for an art class that captured some of his perspective on the Son of God. At the end of his gospel, John says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (NIV)

Judging Zaccheus

Luke 19.1-10 describes Jesus entering Jericho on his way to Jerusalem with a huge crowd around him. The passage also describes a certain man there in some detail.

1. His name was Zaccheus, which means "pure, innocent"
2. He was a chief tax collector, and he was rich
3. He was of "small stature" (even Luke was politically correct!)
4. He was eager to see who Jesus was, to the point he climbed a tree for a good look
5. He welcomed Jesus into his house (right after Jesus invited himself in!)
6. He stood up for Jesus by giving half his possession to the poor and offered to pay back four-times for any money he had extorted

One, Luke mentioned him by name. IMHO, that indicates that became a well-known figure in the church; otherwise, Luke wouldn't have bothered with his name. This further indicates that Zaccheus' initial glad reception of Jesus lead to a deep repentance and a fruitful life.

Two, he had become rich by doing a dirty job. There were two kinds of tax collectors. The first refers to petty officials like the apostle Matthew, who collected tolls and tariffs for the Romans. Nobody liked them, but they weren't in a position to do anybody harm. The second kind, like Zaccheus, oversaw the collection of the taxes. Based on the census, the Romans set an amount of money owed by a district and contracted with chief tax collectors. As long as the tax collectors handed over the set amount, the Romans let the tax collectors gather the money however they wanted. The contracts no doubt paid well, but many chief tax collectors abused the system by extorting additional tax money and pocketing the difference, and there was little the locals could do about. I imagine Zaccheus never went out in public without bodyguards.

Three and four together show how eager Zaccheus was to get a good look at Jesus. Apparently, he wasn't too concerned about what people though about him, which probably came with his job. Imagine how he felt when Jesus stopped right under him, looked up, addressed him by name, and told him to hurry up and climb down!

Five, Zaccheus showed humility, confidence, and hospitality to Jesus. Jesus had just embarrassed him by telling him to come down from the tree and then invited himself to stay at Zaccheus' house. I can imagine the crowd bursting into laughter at Jesus remark, given the circumstances and the fact that they despised Zaccheus. Furthermore, Jesus was a religious teacher, and Zaccheus and his kind were no doubt the subject of unkind remarks during sermons at the synagogue. Last, Jesus had at least twelve disciples with him, all of whom had been walking all day, and Zaccheus would have to house, feed, and provide baths for all of them. Zaccheus responded by quickly climbing down from the tree and giving Jesus a warm welcome.

Six, Zaccheus made a grand gesture when the crowd began to grumble against Jesus. People considered Zaccheus a "sinful man"; when the term was applied to a woman, it meant she was a prostitute. I imagine Zaccheus was used to people talking bad about him, but Zaccheus suddenly felt the need to justify himself before Jesus. He gave half of his possessions to the poor, and he offered to pay back four times the amount of anything he had extorted from anybody.

So, what kind of person was Zaccheus? I have heard that he was greedy and that, after he paid back four-times on all his ill-gotten gains, he was deeply in debt. We might assume that, because many chief tax collectors were dishonest, Zaccheus was also dishonest. I disagree.

First, Zaccheus did not say he would pay back four times for all the amounts he had extorted from people. He said he would pay back four times if, anything, anybody. Zaccheus was plainly saying he dealt honestly in his business, and he challenged anyone to prove otherwise, putting his money where his mouth was. Giving away half his possessions up front shows how serious he was. Needless to say, the story would not have come down to Luke if Zaccheus had not immediately made good on his claim.

Second, Jesus knew who Zaccheus was and decided to invite himself to Zaccheus' house before Zaccheus said a word to him. Perhaps the Spirit inspired Jesus to see into Zaccheus' heart. Or, perhaps Zaccheus had a reputation for giving to the poor, and Jesus had planned in advance to reach out to him. Regardless, Jesus saw something in Zaccheus, this rich "sinner", that he did not see in a rich, religious ruler (Luke 18.18-30.)

What kind of person was Zaccheus? We really don't know. He had a dirty job, but we don't know how he started into it. One possibility is that his father was a chief tax collector, so he became one also. That was typical of the time. If so, he wouldn't have many other opportunities, because his father would have been a social outcast. People despised Zaccheus and called him a "sinner", but that was because of his job, regardless of how he handled it. His only relationships were with other outcasts or non-Jews. He would be excluded from the synagogue. But none of this speaks to his character. He immediately responded to Jesus, he gave his wealth to the poor, and he build a good reputation in the church.

My real point here is about judging others before we really know them. Zaccheus was a leader in a dirty business, and people generally despised him. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that he was greedy and dishonest. But the few facts point to him acting honestly in the face of huge temptation, that he was concerned for the poor, and that he desired to find God. The reality is that the man Jesus found perched in a tree was somewhere in the middle between saint and sinner. Just like the rest of us.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

In Luke 16.19-31, Jesus tells a parable contrasting the fates of a certain rich man and a beggar named "Lazarus". A unique feature of this parable is that one of the characters, Lazarus, is given a name. Why is that?

I've often wondered why certain people in the gospels and Acts are mentioned by name. Some are obvious, such as the apostles, since everyone knew who they were. One that surprised me is Simon the Magician from Acts chapter 8. It turns out that he subsequently traveled to Rome, had himself declared a god, and became one of the first heretics. Thus, in a bad way, he was well known as well. I suspect that people called out by name were generally well known already, and the authors added their names because of this. However, "Lazarus" in the parable is said to have died and gone on to Heaven.

I think that John, who wrote his gospel decades after the others, intended, in part, to answer some of the questions left by the previous authors. Specifically, he devoted a lengthy passage in John 11 to a family in a small village outside Jerusalem. Mary was very well known as the one who poured expensive perfume on Jesus before his death. Her sister was immortalized in Luke 10.41 when Jesus chided her saying, "Martha, Martha!" They also had a brother named Lazarus whom Jesus famously raised from the dead. Along with telling a powerful story, John does addresses two issues from the previous gospels. First, he presents Martha as a strong woman with deep faith whom Jesus loved. Second, he explains why Jesus, and Luke in recounting it, used a real name in a parable.

When Jesus raised Lazarus, the news spread rapidly, so that even the chief priests felt compelled to act against Jesus. Now, imagine Jesus telling this parable and using Lazarus as a key character. It ends with the rich man begging Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers of their fate.

"³⁰But [the rich man] said, "No, father Abraham, rather if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent." ³¹And [Abraham] said to him, "If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead."

Some critics complain that God, if he were real, would do more to reveal himself to people. Jesus did countless public miracles, and yet he was put to death. The problem is that not that God has failed to reveal himself, but that people stubbornly refuse to acknowledge him.

Forcing Our Way Into the Kingdom

I was reading Luke 16 when I reached verse 16. The NIV says:
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it." Can we really force our way into God's kingdom?

The Greek word "biazo" means to force someone to do something against their will, often through the use of violence. Did Jesus really mean to say that people can violently force their way into God's kingdom against God's will? I have heard preachers claim that Jesus is calling us to make every effort to enter the kingdom; the goal of this preaching is to motivate people to take their salvation seriously. While I agree with the sentiment, I can hear Jesus saying, "Enter through the narrow gate," but not, "Kick the gate in!"

Here is my own translation of the verse.
"The Law and the Prophets [stood] until John. Since then, The kingdom of God is proclaimed, and each forces himself against it."

First, I put "stood" in brackets because the Greek leaves the verb out; it must be understood from the context. Second, I corrected the person, "each" and "forces" are both third person singular. To me, this is typical of Luke, who tends to focus on the individual. Also, the verb is in middle voice, so "forces himself" (or, "herself".)

Finally, the preposition "eis" has the base meaning of "into". Thus, the NIV translation is "correct". At the same time, it ignores the fact that the Greek language is highly nuanced, and wooden translations can simply miss the real meaning. I prefer the translation "against".

So, how do we know what Luke really meant? First, we use a dictionary, in my case, the BDAG. As it turns out, "eis" has a number of related meanings, not just "into". It can also mean "in", "toward", "to", and, in entry 4.c.alpha, in a hostile sense, "against".

My understanding of this verse is that people are trying to forcibly change the course of the kingdom, rather than submitting themselves to it. They want citizenship among God's people, but they want to dictate the terms, rather than accepting Jesus' teaching.

This approach seems to fit the preceding two verses, the Pharisees were sneering at Jesus' teaching, and Jesus strongly rebuked them. John and Jesus preached God's kingdom, and the Pharisees opposed their teaching, promoting their own interpretations of the Law and the Prophets instead. We should keep in mind that the Pharisees saw themselves as the keepers of true doctrine and the shepherds of the masses. As God, through John and Jesus, tried to change the course his people were following, the Pharisees were failing to understand and ended up opposing God instead of serving him.

One problem I see has to do with why Luke put this verse in such an awkward form. One solution is that he fitted a quote from a source, an oral or written account, into his own narrative, and he didn't want to modify the quote too much. Personally, I believe that source was Matthew's gospel, which I believe was written some 15-20 years earlier. Looking at Matthew 11.12 (NIV):
"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it."
Note that the translators used "subjected to violence" here, where they used "is forcing" in Luke. Verses 17 and 18 also have parallels in Matthew.

I see two lessons here. First, we must be careful about drawing conclusions from single verses, especially when those conclusions do not fit well with the overall themes of the Bible. The idea of getting fired up and storming our way to salvation might be appealing to some, but that simply cuts across the clear theme that we are saved by God's grace as we put our faith in Jesus.

Second, we need to pay attention to the Pharisees. We can view them as vile hypocrites, and some of them were. However, the reality is that the Pharisees were largely a grass-roots movement that sought to keep the faith even as the religious leaders became wealthy, political, and worldly. The vast majority of Pharisees were poor shopkeepers who lived for God's word. For those of us living in the United States, this should sound familiar. The fact that many of them became so engrossed in their traditions that they couldn't see God living among them and ended up opposing him should be sober warning to us all.

Personally, my faith in God through Jesus has only grown deeper. I came to faith because of the Bible, and I remain convinced that it is God's word. On the other hand, my understanding of the Bible has changed, sometimes radically, as I have allowed my thinking to be challenged by objective evidence. I am comforted that, even as I have put aside many of my old interpretations, my new interpretations make me even more convinced of the inspiration of God's word and its essential truthfulness.