The Pharisee and The Tax Collector (Part 2): The Tax Collector

Introduction

This post continues the two-part study on the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. The last post looked at the Pharisee and his side of the story. This post will look at the tax collector and his side of the story. I hope you have already re-read the parable in another Bible version (preferably a dynamic equivalency if you already read a literal translation) because we are diving right into their cultural context: their personalities as individuals, how their communities impacted society, and the cultural stigma that went with them.

The Cultural Account

I know I don’t have to ask what thoughts are feelings arise when you hear “tax collector.” It doesn’t matter if you live in the 1^st century or 21^st century, nobody likes a tax collector. Even on an episode of Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, when Regis asked the contestant his occupation, and the contestant answered, “a collector for the Internal Revenue Service,” the audience immediately booed him. The negative connotation of the tax collector most likely comes from viewing the tax collector as someone taking away our hard earned money. People feel like they worked hard to get that money, and no one should have the right to take from them. This feeling probably did not change from 1^st century to 21^st century. Yet the person living in the 21^st century should appreciate the 21^st century tax collector because the 21^st century tax collector has standards, boundaries, ethics and morals. The 1^st century tax collector had no such thing.

In the 1^st century cultural context of the New Testament, tax collectors of the Roman Empire could be of any race or ethnicity, but they all worked for the Roman Empire, which made them appear more as sympathizers to the Romans rather than citizens of their own race and ethnicity.

The Roman Empire required tax collectors to collect three main taxes: an annual land tax, an annual income tax and customs or poll tax. In addition, sometimes local taxes were levied by the local rulers by the whim of authority. Furthermore, the Roman Empire allowed tax collectors to collect extra for their salary. This too was at the whim of the tax collector. He collected as much as he thought he deserved. Individually and altogether, taxes were generally high. Josephus records in Jewish Antiquities the land tax for farmers in Sidon was 25% of the sown produce! Clearly the Roman Empire did not help the cultural view of tax collectors.

As if the Roman Empire did not help the view of tax collectors, tax collectors really didn’t help themselves either. Tax collectors could get nasty when it came to collecting their taxes. Some tortured and killed debtors and those close to the debtors in order to get their money. Philo writes in Special Laws, “When some of [the tax collector’s] debtors whose default was clearly due to poverty took flight in fear of the fatal consequences of his vengeance, [the tax collector] carried off by force their womenfolk and children and parents and their other relatives and beat and subjected them to every kind of outrage and contumely in order to make them either tell him the whereabouts of the fugitive or discharge his debt themselves.” Some tax collectors also committed fraud on a regular basis. Philo writes in Embassy to Gaius, “Capito is the tax-collector for Judaea and cherishes a spite against the population. When he came there he was a poor man but by his rapacity [covetousness] and peculation [embezzlement] he has amassed much wealth in various forms.” In Sanhedrin 25b, “At first they thought that they [tax collectors and publicans] collected no more than the legally imposed tax. But when it was seen that they overcharged, they were disqualified.” These atrocities gave tax collectors, even the good ones, a bad name.

Therefore, people hated tax collectors and saw them a low lifes. Jewish rabbis grouped them with other low lifes, like thieves, robbers, murderers, adulterers and pimps. Some rabbis even claimed God would punish tax collectors with leprosy. Jews also saw tax collectors as ceremonially unclean and traitors to Judaism. Jews even used the term “tax collector” as a derogatory term to call people. Not only did the Jews see tax collectors as low lifes, Romans also saw them as lesser people. In Cicero’s Duties, Cicero writes a list of occupations, with the most gentlemen-like at the top and the most vulgar at the bottom. Tax collectors fall all the way to the bottom. Nobody liked a tax collector.

Since the Jews looked down on tax collectors, the Jews treated down tax collectors. Tax collectors were not allowed to be Pharisees until they quit their job. In court, they could not be judges, nor could their testimony could be used. Jeremias sums it up best in Jerusalem, “[A tax collector] was deprived of civil and political rights to which every Israelite had claim, even those such as bastards who were of seriously blemished descent.” The Jews made it clear in their behavior how much they disliked the tax collectors. While the job might have paid well, becoming a tax collector made it a tough ride in life socially.

The Biblical Account

Tax collectors are clearly visible in the Gospel presence. They occur 25 times in the Gospel: 9 times in Matthew, 4 times in Mark, 12 times in Luke, 0 times in John. It’s not that John was against Christ’s actions toward tax collectors, but rather John, being the last gospel, thought the other Gospel writers covered it enough. These occurrences cover 11 different episodes. We don’t have the time fully exegete all 11 different episodes, but we will cover some main topics in which Jesus encounters tax collectors and will connect them to cultural context.

Jesus Uses It As A Derogatory Term

Matthew 5:46 ESV-

“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?”

Matthew 18:17 ESV-

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

Does it surprise you these are quotes from Jesus? If Jesus used the term “tax collector” as a derogatory term, does that mean Jesus had the same low, negative view of tax collectors? I think not. Look at both the cultural context and the literary context. Notice how both quotes come from the book of Matthew. Matthew is Jew writing to Jews. The cultural account teaches that the Jews hated the tax collectors more than anyone else. The Jews let tax collectors know how hated they were in both their words and actions. In both of these quotes, Jesus uses this cultural knowledge to turn the Jews’ world and the kingdom of God upside down on the Jews. In Matthew 5:46, Jesus uses the tax collectors’ low view to teach the importance of loving everyone, including your enemies. If even those of the lowest stature can love those that love them, then those who deem themselves as more moral and more upright must go a step above just loving those who love them. In Matthew 18:17, Jesus uses the tax collectors’ low standing to explain the severity of someone in the church who will not heed to church discipline. Yet at the same time with Matthew 18:17, perhaps the point of comparing an unrepentant church member to a tax collector was to get across that both need God’s love and God’s salvation, and that everyone needs God’s love and God’s salvation.

Tax Collectors are the Object of the Lost/Found Parables

Luke 15:1,2 ESV-

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

Sadly, Christians have a habit of separating these 3 parables when they really do belong together (technically, the 2 parables in Luke 16 most likely go with the 3 parables in Luke 15 too, but that’s a different discussion for a later time). Sadly, Christians also forget the importance of the first two introductory verses in Luke 15. The introductory verses, together with the parables, explain why Jesus receives and eats with tax collectors and sinners. The parables emphasize the joy of something, or someone, lost being found. In the same way, Jesus rejoices over sinners coming to salvation. If Jesus rejoices over sinners coming to salvation, godly men and women should do the same. The problem is that the Jewish religious leaders did not. They judged and condemned the tax collectors and sinners instead of helping them to salvation. Jesus emphasizes this point at the end of the prodigal son parable. The older brother represents the Jewish leadership because they are always with the Father, and yet they did not know the Father. If they would have known the Father, they too would work with tax collectors and sinners to help them come to repentance.

Jesus Calls A Tax Collector To Be A Disciple

Of the 12 disciples, the Gospels record Jesus specifically calling 5 of them. One of those is Levi, whom is known better as Matthew. All 3 synoptic Gospels record this event: Matthew 9:9-11, Mark 2:14-16 and Luke 5:27-30. The original Greek literally calls Matthew a “tax gatherer.” This means that Matthew actually collected the 3 taxes mentioned above: the annual income tax, the annual land tax and the customs/poll tax. More specifically, Matthew is the custom house official. This means that Matthew placed tax on whatever he wanted and then collected it. Jesus calling a tax collector to be a disciple must have been a shock to everyone, especially the Jewish religious leaders. Remember that everyone thought tax collecting was the most despicable and least moral job a person could have. This job was so looked down on that the Pharisees required tax collectors to quit their job in order to take any kind of religious job. Jesus turned their world upside down. Instead of choosing his disciples as the best of the best, he chose them as the worse of the worse. Jesus did not look for those who were already good and moral; he wanted those who wanted to learn and work on their lives. This is why Jesus says in all 3 synoptic Gospels something along the lines of, “It is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick. I did not come for the righteous, but for sinners.”

Jesus Ate With Tax Collectors

When all 3 synoptic Gospels tell the story of Jesus calling Matthew, they also recall Jesus going to eat with Matthew and his fellow tax collector friends. Furthermore, in Luke 19:5-7, Jesus goes to the home of Zacchaeus, another tax collector. Remember that in this culture dining with someone at their house means acceptance, reconciliation and a close relationship. This is why people become upset when they see Jesus go into the house of Zacchaeus to eat with him. Jesus reminds them of what he said to Matthew. In Luke 19:10, Jesus says, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” The people should not scoff at Jesus hanging out with sinners because that’s what Jesus came for: bringing sinners to repentance.

Conclusion

 

I purposely placed those Biblical accounts in that order so you can see a common, building theme. The theme climaxes with Luke 19:10. Christ’s yearning was for sinners to come to God. So Jesus came down from heaven so that sinners may one day be lifted up to see God face-to-face and live with him forever. Now throw in what I said about what Jesus was doing with borrowing the Jews’ derogatory term. By purposely targeting someone looked down on in Jewish society, Jesus made a bold statement to the Jews. No one can be so stooped down in sin that he or she cannot be saved. Jesus wants to love everyone and wants everyone to repent of sin and come to Him. If Jesus is a friend of tax collectors, he’ll be a friend of me.

Acknowledgement

I am eternally grateful to Dr. Dough Buckwalter, New Testament professor at Evangelical Seminary, for the original texts and originally sources.

The Pharisee and The Tax Collector (Part 1): The Pharisee

Introduction

This post begins a two-part study on the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. As the title obviously gives away, the parable has two main characters: a Pharisee and a tax collector. The choice of these characters for this parable was no mistake. Jesus knew who was in his audience what issues he had to deal with. So Jesus very carefully chooses his characters. To know why these 2 characters are important, the reader must understand their personalities as individuals, how their communities impacted society, and the cultural stigma that went with them. This post will look at the Pharisees’ side of the story. The next post will look at the tax collectors’ side of the story.

Since there will be two posts covering the two characters of story, take the time to read the story twice. To mix it up a bit, read the passage in 2 different translations of the Bible. For the first time, read the parable in a literal translation, like New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), King James Version (KJV) or New King James Version (NKJV). For the second time, read the story in a dynamic equivalency, like the Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), New International Version (NIV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), Century English Version (CEV), or New Century Version (NCV). I personally chose the NASB and NCV.

The Biblical Account

What kind of thoughts or feelings arise when you hear the term “Pharisee”? Most people have a negative connotation to Pharisees. The New Testament, especially the Gospels, give the reader this negative connotation about the Pharisees. The Bible shows its reader that they had a poor view of the Old Testament, especially the Law. They favored their Rabbinic interpretation of the Law, so much that they put the Rabbinic interpretation over the Law itself! They believed following the Law would bring about the Messiah and salvation. In believing so, they became legalistic, which in turn made the Law itself an idol. They failed to that the Lord was a God who was gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love (Matthew 23:23,24). Because of their bad views of the Law, it led the Pharisees to believe they were purer, holier, more righteous and more sacred than the rest of the people, which they deemed “sinners.” The New Testament carefully depicts the Pharisees as self-righteous. The Pharisees would agree with that depiction, and they would boast about it, too! The Pharisees boasted themselves up and put other people down, pretty much condemning everyone who wasn’t a Pharisee. Both the first point, the poor view of the Old Testament, and second point, seeing themselves as self-righteous, led the Pharisees naturally to a third negative point: the Pharisees would ultimately reject Jesus, and they would get so angry with him, they would play a crucial role when it came to Christ’s death. The Gospels remind their audience about this crucial role the Pharisees played in crucifying Jesus. Pharisees voted towards executing Jesus. Pharisees stirred up the crowd to coax Pontius Pilate to allow the death penalty. After anyone reads the New Testament, especially the Gospels, that person will naturally have negatives feelings towards the Pharisees.

Enough trash talking about the Pharisees. Can anyone say anything good about the Pharisees? Do the Gospels even mention any good instance where a Pharisee is good or in the right? Yes, in fact, it does! There are a few positive instances. Most are in Luke. How ironic, that the only Gentile Gospel writer has the most positive things to say about the Jews! Luke records 3 times that a Pharisee invited Jesus to his house (Luke 7:36, 11:37, 14:1). This hospitality demonstrates a willingness to hear what the Jesus had to say. John also reminds us that while several Pharisees stood against Jesus, it doesn’t mean that all were against him. Some, such as Nicodemus, secretly followed Jesus (John 7:50,51; 12:42,43; 19:38,39). If that’s the case, it’s quite possible that maybe some Pharisees on the Sanhedrin voted against putting Jesus to death.

The Cultural Account

The Pharisees were a religious group that developed during the intertestament period (between the Old Testament and New Testament), right after the Maccabean Revolt (the Hanukkah story).

The Pharisees were not liberal, but were less conservative than the Sadducees, and a different type of conservative. Take purity, for example. The Sadducees were more conservative because they believed everything needed to be pure in every sacrifice: the sacrifice itself, the high priest, and even the tools used in the sacrifice. The Pharisees were less conservative in this matter. They were only concerned about purity in special sacrifices, like the sacrifice for the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies during Yom Kippur. Yet this doesn’t mean they weren’t concerned with purity at all. When they needed to be pure, they took extra precaution. They would wash the altar on which the sacrifice was performed. They would also take extra precautions to make sure the priests were impure. The priests weren’t allowed to be even close to someone who was sick, not even a cold!

The Pharisees advertised themselves as the religious party “of the people.” To be a Pharisee, a man needed to have a family. The man needed to be married and have children, so he could relate to the people who were part of a family. To be a Pharisee, a man also needed to have a job. Most of the Sadducees were priests or levites or even “professional Sadducees.” The Pharisees wanted to relate to the people, so they wanted a have a common job to relate to the common worker. At the same time, a Pharisee couldn’t have just any old job. They needed to have what we call a “white collar job” and they could not have what we call a “blue collar job” because the “white collar jobs” were more dignified and respectable than the “blue collar obs.” Such jobs that were off-limits were tax collector and fisherman (fishermen were dirty, smelly, and they worked naked often). So you can imagine how appalled the Pharisees were at Jesus when Jesus first calls 4 fishermen and a tax collector to be his disciples! Yet that’s what Jesus was all about: turning the kingdom of God upside down on the Pharisees.

Connecting the Biblical Account and the Cultural Account

The Pharisees also had “top 3” when it came to spiritual disciplines. Can you guess 2 of them? I bet you can! Hint: it’s the 2 the Pharisee mentions in the parable. 2 of them are fasting and giving, whether it be tithing to God or giving to the poor. The third one was prayer. Which is quite interesting. Read Matthew 6:1-6,16-18 below, and pay close what I’ve italicized for emphasis. You should notice a pattern.

Matthew 6:1-6,16-18 (NIV, 1984 ed.)-

“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. ² “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. ³ But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, ⁴ so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. ⁵ And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. ⁶ But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. ¹⁶ When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. ¹⁷ But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, ¹⁸ so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

All these verses came from the same section and the same sermon series, the Sermon on the Mount. How fitting. Did you notice the pattern here? Did you notice similar words and phrases? I noticed 3 similar phrases: “as the hypocrites do,” “I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full” and “Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” The pattern shows that these 3 parts of the Sermon on the Mount together by no mistake. They belong together. I believe that here, in these passages, “hypocrite” is code name for the Pharisees because all 3 spiritual practices Jesus mentions are the top 3 spiritual practices of the Pharisees. But Jesus used the code name “hypocrites” because, after all, you don’t want to start your ministry calling out and attacking the most love religious party, the religious party “of the people.” What do you think is the reward that they have received in full? I think it’s public attention, which they want. But Jesus reveals how weak and fleeting public attention is. Instead, Jesus presents the right way to spiritually discipline oneself in fasting, prayer and giving, in a way that honors God, and in turn, God blesses them. That’s the true reward. Once again, Jesus turns the Kingdom of God upside down on the Pharisees.

Let’s make one more connection between the culture of the Pharisees and the Bible. A common prayer Pharisees would recite says, “Blessed are You, LORD our God, King of the universe, who has not made me a Gentile, a slave or a woman.” It was common for Pharisees to recite this prayer, almost on a daily basis, Pharisees such as Paul. Then Paul gets saved. Take a look at Galatians 3:28 below. Once again, pay close attention to what I italicized for emphasis.

Galatians 3:28 (NIV 1984 ed.)-

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus

The Greek word used for “Greek” can also be translated “Gentile.” I think Paul had this prayer in mind when Paul wrote Galatians 3:28 Instead of lifting himself up as better than others, he praised God for being counted among those people in the kingdom of God. What do you think changed Paul? Obviously Paul is saved, but what part about becoming a Christian changed Paul’s mind? Whatever the reason, Jesus truly changed the life of this Pharisee. Before, Saul would praise God for not being what he considered a “lower person” in all his pride. After, Paul humbly praised God that he could join the ranks of all those people to be considered a child of God. That’s the power of Jesus Christ!

Conclusion

While the Pharisees would occasionally listen to others, they mostly concluded they had it right and looked down on anyone who disagreed with them. They would also look down on anyone who weren’t free Jewish men, like slaves, Gentiles, and women. This is why they probably rejected Jesus. Jesus befriended the slaves, Gentiles, women, tax collectors, fishermen and the lower class. They thought a good free Jewish man would avoid people, but Jesus turned the Kingdom of God upside down on them. And any Pharisee who believed in Jesus, like Nicodemus and Paul, was turned around, upside down and totally changed. Therefore, when I read the parable in Luke 18, I don’t think it’s the fact he’s a Pharisee that makes the Pharisee go home unjustified. It’s his refusal to humble his heart before God. If the Pharisee too would have beaten his breast and begged for mercy, both men would have gone home justified before God. The point is both are sinners and both need forgiveness. As Christians, this should give us hope. If even the most godly Pharisee can humble his heart and receive forgiveness, so can the most godly Christian receive forgiveness when he or she humbles his or her heart.

Was Jesus A Magician?

Introduction

Was Jesus a magician? I know this sounds like a crazy question to us. To us, it’s an obvious “no,” maybe followed by an obvious “duh.” But that’s because we are 21^st century Christians, in the 21^st century Christian mindset. Put your mind in the 1^st century context. Magicians were everywhere. There was probably at least two in every village and town, and maybe even more in the cities. They could commonly be seen walking down the streets and in the marketplaces. All of them claimed to have power (from gods or demons), and all of them could perform magic. From the view of a 1^st century person Jesus could have easily looked like just another magician. This post will look how made sure he never seemed like just another magician when he performed a miracle. In fact, he made sure to portray himself as quite the opposite.

The Cultural Account

First, let me carefully define a 1^st century magician. A 1^st century magician is nothing like a 21^st century magician. A 1^st century magician does not perform magic for entertainment, as a 21^st century magician would. He’s not pulling rabbits out of hats, he’s not sawing women in half, he’s not escaping from straitjackets. A better term to describe a 1^st century magician would be a witch or a witch doctor. A better 21^st equivalent would be a psychic. Like I said above, there’s usually two in a village or two: one a witch, and the other one a witch doctor. You went to the witch if you to put a curse on someone or something. You went to the witch doctor if you wanted the curse taken off of yourself, or you wanted a blessing placed on yourself.

For what specific reasons would a person go to a witch or witch doctor to harness magical powers? Ancient writings provide about 7 main reasons. They are as follows:

1.      Protection, from both the natural and the supernatural

2.      Healing, both physical and mental
3.      To have someone fall in love with you
4.      Harming someone or something
5.      Knowing the future
6.      Changing the future
7.      Victory in sport or battle

Let’s take a deeper look at these ancient writings to see how magicians performed their magic arts, looking carefully at the words spoken and the actions performed.

To have someone fall in love with you

I adjure you, demon of death, cause to pine away Sarapion out of love for Dioskorus, whom

Tikoi bore: burn his heart, let it melt and let his blood dry up through love, longing, and pain
over me until Sarapion, whom Pasametra bore, comes to Dioskours, whom Tikoi bore, and
fulfills all my wishes and loves me ceaselessly until he descends into Hades. I adjure you,
demon of death, by Adonai, by Sabaoth. (magical papyri 16)

I adjure all ghosts [demonas] in this place to come to the assistance of this ghost. Raise yourself

up for me from the repose that keeps you and go out into every district and every quarter and
every house and every shop, and drive, spellbind Matrona…that she may not (have intercourse
vaginal, anal, or oral with anyone else, nor) be able to go with any other man than Theodorus…and never let Matrona…be able to endure or be healthy or find sleep night or day without Theodorus. (“A Love Charm with Verses,”)

The irony with these spells is that while the end goal is for a certain person to fall in love with the user of the spell, these spells relay the feeling that the magic user really doesn’t love that person. After all, what loving person would pray that the person they hold closest in their heart would not be able to sleep or be healthy until they admit their love? These spells do not show the interest of the other person, but rather, only the interest of the user, even at the cost of the wellbeing of the other person.

Protection, from both the natural and the supernatural

Onto lime wood write with vermilion this name “[50 Greek letters] Guard me from every

demon of the air on the earth and under the earth, and from every angel and phantom and ghostly visitation and enchantment, me [enter name].” Enclose it in a purple skin, hang it around your neck and wear it. (magical papyri)

Knowing the Future

To Sokonnokonneus, the twice-great god. Reveal to me whether I should remain in Bachias.

Should I make a request? Reveal this to me! To the most great, powerful god, Soknopaias,
by Asklepiades, son of Aneios, Is it not prohibited to me to marry Tapetheus, daughter of Marre
and will she not marry another? Show me this and complete [the answer] to this written
[question]. To Soknopaios and Sokanpeios, great, great gods: from Statoetis, son of Apynchis,
son of Tesenuphis. Will I be saved from illness? Give me information about this! To the
great gods Soknopaias and Sokonupis. Is it granted to me to start a business for gladiators?
Give me information about this! (magical papyri 30)

I call upon you, inhabitants of Chaos and Erebos [the underworld], of the depth, of earth, watchers of heaven, of darkness, masters of things not to be seen, guardians of secrets, leaders of those beneath the earth, administrators of things which are infinite, those who wield power over earth, servants in the chasm, shudderful fighters, fearful ministers, inhabitants of dark Erebos,

coercive watchers, rulers of cliffs, grievers of the heart, adverse daimons, iron-hearted ones
[seven magical names are given]…Reveal concerning the matter which I am considering.
(magical papyri 7.348–58)

Victory in sport or battle

I conjure you up, holy beings and holy names; join in aiding this spell, and bind, enchant, thwart,strike, overturn, conspire against, destroy, kill, break Eucherius the charioteer, and all his horses tomorrow in the circus at Rome. May he not leave the barriers well; may he not be quick in the contest; may he not outstrip anyone; may he not make the turns well; may he not win any prizes…may he be broken; may he be dragged along by your power, in the morning and afternoon races. Now! Now! Quickly! Quickly!

Listen to how harsh this incantation is! The person praying is wants to win so bad, he prays that his rival will be hurt or killed! Once again, this incantation has no intention of showing love to the other. I think it rather shows hate in order to get his selfish desires.

Harming someone or something

WHAT TO DO: “Take a lead lamella [thin, metal plate] and inscribe with a bronze stylus the following names and the figure [depicted in the papyrus text], and after smearing it with blood from a bat, roll up the lamella in the ususal fashion. Cut open a frog and put it into its stomach. After stitching it up with Anubian thread and a bronze needle, hang it up on a reed from your property by means of hairs from the tip of the tail of a black ox, at the east of the property near the rising of the sun.”

WHAT TO SAY: “Supreme angels, just as the frog drips with blood and dries up, so also will

the body of him [a space to insert the name of the victim] whom [a space to insert the name
of the victim’s mother] bore, because I conjure you, who are in command of fire…” (magical
papyri 36.231–55)

Other Magical Objects and Actions

“A woman is guaranteed never to miscarry if, tied round her neck in gazelle leather, she wears

white flesh from a hyaena’s breast, seven hyaena’s hairs, and the genital organ of a stag.”
(Pliny, Natural History, 28.27.98–99)

 This would have been in a 1^st century fertility book! Aren’t you glad it didn’t make it to a 21^st century fertility book?

“It acts as a charm for a man to spit on the urine he has [discharged]; similarly to spit into

the right shoe before putting it on.” (Pliny, Natural History, 28.7.38)

So if you want good luck, men, either spit in your right shoe or spit in your urine every time you pee. This seems like a lose-lose or choosing the less of two evils.

“Hailstorms and whirlwinds are driven away if menstrual fluid is exposed to the very flashes

of lightning.” (Pliny, Natural History, 28.23.77)

Thunders and lightning fear a woman having her period just as much as men do :-P haha

“The extreme end of the [hyaena’s] intestine prevails against the injustices of leaders and

potentates, bringing success to petitions and a happy issue to trials and lawsuits if it is merely
kept on the person;…the anus [of a hyaena], worn as an amulet on the left arm, is so powerful
a love-charm that, if a man but [sees] a woman, she at once follows him.” (Pliny, Natural History, 28.27.106)

Men, how many times have you seen an ugly woman, but once you see her put on a hyaena butt, she becomes instantly beautiful?

“If door-posts are merely touched by the menstrual discharge, the tricks are rendered vain of

the Magi, a lying crowd, as is easily ascertained.” (Pliny, Natural History, 28.23.88)

And all other magical problems can be negated by spreading your menstrual blood on the doorposts likes it’s Passover.

I know all these magical words and performances sound crazy, but put it in a more recent context. Think about all the crazy superstitions people practice in modern times that have little to no scientific backing. Kids in the 1990s wore placed a rabbit’s foot or two on their backpacks and key chains. Before then, people had horseshoes, and some still do. I go could on mentioning throwing salt over the shoulder, knocking on wood and avoiding stepping on cracks. Now to be fair, maybe some of these superstitions arose from safety precautions. For example, people learned not to walk under ladders because walking under ladders was unsafe. Eventually, it became unlucky. Also to be fair, remember that 1^st century people did not know of a distinction between magic and science. Sometimes they 1^st century people were doing science, but they did not know it, so they called it magic. Most cases, however, as the cases seen above, did not come from safety precautions or early attempts at science. They were merely superstitions that arose from the pagan polytheism.

Let’s also review some of the discussion about demon exorcism, since demon exorcisms are miracles, and since demon exorcisms have commonalities with miracles. Already, we have seen that magic depends on some amulet, talisman or device, just like in exorcisms. Also, notice the necessity to call on gods or higher powers. The people of the 1^st century believed that even the gods had to submit to the powers of magic. So in theory, a human well versed in magic could overcome the will of a god. So just like in exorcisms, magicians, witches and witch doctors sought to call out a god by name in order to control his power. These gods had very little sovereignty; their will constantly fought the will of man.

The Biblical Account

The Bible records Jesus performing 37 miracles, but John 20:30,31 hints that Jesus probably performed more. As a case study, let’s look at when Jesus cured the blind. The New Testament records Jesus healing the blind 4 times. They are as follows:

1.      Jesus heals 2 blind men (Matthew 9:27-31)
2.      Jesus heals Bartimaeus (Matthew 20:29-34, Mark 10:46-52, Luke 18:35-43)
3.      Jesus heals the blind man at Bethesda (Mark 8:22-26)
4.      Jesus heals the man born blind (John 9:1-41)

Pause here. Open up your Bible and read all 4 stories. Yes, this includes reading all 3 accounts of healing blind Bartimaeus. As you read each story, take notice of how Jesus heals them. Write it down if you have to. When you are done, come back here and compare answers with me. This is what I got:

1.      Jesus healing 2 blind men – Touching the eyes
2.      Jesus healing blind Bartimaeus – speaking and touching
3.      Jesus healing the blind man at Bethesda – spitting, then touching
4.      Jesus healing the man born blind – made mud with spit, placed mud on eyes, wash in the pool of Siloam

Compare it to how the culture would say a witch doctor would cure blindness. Jesus never calls upon a god or a higher power. What a testimony to his own deity! Jesus never prays a prayer or speaks a special incantation. In fact, Jesus never addresses the blindness directly. He just states the healing has happened. Jesus never needs any kind amulet, talisman or device. In fact, the four blindness healings really don’t have anything in common; they are all different. The closest commonality is that Jesus touches them, but this touching is most likely to be intimate or personal in the healing.

This is very important that Jesus does not have a formula or procedure to curing the blind. Suppose Jesus healed every blind person that same way he healed the man born blind: making mud from spit, spreading the mud on the eyes, and washing the eyes in water. Then pastors would hold blindness healing services in their churches, which the whole service would consist of spitting, making mud, spreading the mud on blind people’s eyes, and then washing them off. Problems would really occur if a blind person still couldn’t see after undergoing the spit, mud and washing ceremony. Talk about having doubts!

From the start, Jesus de-emphasizes any kind of method. If the method is de-emphasized, then what is emphasized? Jesus is. Every miracle points back to Jesus. At the most, someone could say that faith is a commonality with every miracle, and therefore faith is emphasized, but even there, the faith points back to Jesus, emphasizing him.

Conclusion

So was Jesus a magician? Some of the Sanhedrin of the 1^st century claimed Jesus was a magician, in hope that a truly religious Jew would not follow someone like a witch doctor. But if anyone living in the 1^st century knew their culture, they would know how far from the truth that claim is. Jesus did not perform his miracles like magicians or witches performed magic. He did not call upon gods for higher power, he did not speak any prayer or incantations, and did use any use any object, like the magicians and witches. Jesus also never performed his miracles to get the upper hand on his personal life or other people. Rather, Jesus performed miracles to help lift up people in unfortunate circumstances. So Jesus was not a magician, he was much better than that. He was the Messiah, saving people from unfortunate situations. He was God, depending on his own power instead of manipulating a higher up power. Therefore, the miracles of Jesus should encourage us to not seek other supernatural solutions, like psychics, but instead to seek Jesus for the solution to all our problems.


Acknowledgements
I am eternally grateful to Dr. Doug Buckwalter, New Testament professor at Evangelical Seminary, for the original texts and the original resources.

Jesus Christ, Demon Hunter

Introduction

Last week we saw the authority of Jesus through His upbringing and His word. Next, we are going to look at the authority of Jesus through His miracles. Jesus demonstrates His authority through all His miracles, but one stands out more, so much it needs to be discussed on its own. It is when Jesus exorcises demons out of the demon-possessed.

Demons seem to be all the rages in moves in the 21^st century. In this decade alone, already 35 movies involving demon-possession have been released, and 5 more are already lined up for this year. Can you name some of them? Some that come to my mind are The Possession, Paranormal Activity, The Devil Inside, The Exorcist, The Amityville Haunting, Devil and Insidious. Why do you think demon-possession is so popular today? Because of the modernist worldview during the modern age, one that didn’t really believe in the supernatural world, we’ve reduced demon-possession to something between fiction and fantasy. But in the 1^st century world, demon-possessions were very real, as real as the flu to us. Of course, if they see it like a “spiritual disease,” then they are also looking for a cure. Today we’ll talk about what the culture believed the cure, and how Jesus brought the real cure.

The Cultural Account

Here are the 4 steps the people of the 1^st century used for exorcising a demon:

1.      Address the demon or demons by name. The pagan religions believed that when you called a spiritual or supernatural being by name, you could control it and its power. So the first step of exorcising a demon would be to establish your power and authority over it by calling its name.

2.      Call upon your god for power. Ironically, some of the cultic worship back then was worship of “demon-gods,” in which people worshipped demons, in fear that, if they did not, they demons would curse them and punish them. So in order to cast out demons, these people would call demons into themselves first, in essence making themselves demon-possessed.

3.      Prayer a prayer or declare incantations. In Jewish Antiquities by Josephus, Josephus records watching Elezar, a country man, cast out a demon. Elezar claims that God gave Solomon a special, secret knowledge on how to exorcise demons. So Elezar calls on the name of Solomon, and then prays the incantation that Solomon wrote down.

4.      Use some kind of device. Most accounts use a root of the rue plant, but the accounts differ on how to use it. In some accounts, it’s a simple touch. In other accounts, the root is turned into a potion to drink. In another account, the root is set on fire, and the demon-possessed must inhale the smoke. Yet in other accounts, the root is used to sprinkle water on the demon-possessed.

According our culture on demon-possession and demon exorcism, has our views on how to exorcise a demon changed or stayed the same? How is the same? How has it changed? I think it has stayed the same, and yet it has changed. People still prayer and used incantations, but they have Christian language in them. People use objects, but it’s crosses instead of rue plant roots. People still call on God’s name to cast, and some even call the demon’s name, too.

The Biblical Account

There are 4 full stories of demon exorcisms in the Bible, and they are as follows:

1.      The mute boy (Matthew 17:14-20; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43)

2.      The demon-possessed man in the Geresenes (Matthew 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20)

3.      The demon-possessed man in the synagogue in Capernaum (Mark 1:21-28; Luke 4:31-37)

4.      The daughter of the woman from Syrophoencia (Mark 7:24-30)

There are also a few brief statements about general demon exorcisms Jesus performs throughout the Gospels, such as Mark 1:34,39. Notice how none of them appear in the Gospel according to John, but all of them appear in the Gospel according Mark. It’s not clear why John would not mention 1 demon exorcism at all, but for Mark, it’s important to his gospel. Mark needs to demonstrate to his readers that Jesus is strong, powerful and has great authority. What a better way than to cast out a demon!

Let’s take a look at one of these accounts. Let’s look at Mark 1:21-28.

Mark 1:21-28 ESV-

²¹ And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and was teaching. ²² And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes. ²³ And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, ²⁴  “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.” ²⁵ But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” ²⁶ And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice, came out of him. ²⁷ And they were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” ²⁸ And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.

The Greek word for “be silence,” phimōthēti, literally means “to muzzle” or “to shut the mouth.” Figuratively, it is used to means “to silent,” but it has a stronger, more forceful connotation. The best English equivalent would probably “Shut up!”

So why is Jesus so stern about the demon not talking? It goes back to the cultural understanding of casting out demons. One of the steps of removing a demon is calling out the demon by name. Remember that this reasoning came from the pagan belief that calling out the name of a god or demon would utilize its power. The demon, or demon-possessed man, might have attempted to get upper hand on Jesus. He thought he could call Jesus “The Most Holy God” and take control of him and his power. Jesus quickly denies that by silencing the demon and casting the demon out.

Is it the same or different from how the culture would exorcise demons? Very different. How is different? There’s no addressing the demon by name, no calling upon a god or deity for help, no incantation spoken, nor is there a device used. Jesus uses none of the above. No special prayer or incantation is spoken. No object is needed. His words are enough. He doesn’t need to call the demon by name. He doesn’t need to call upon a deity for power. To me, that’s the most important one. Why is that so important? It proves Jesus is God; it proves his deity. When the apostles cast out demons in the book of Acts, even they call on the name of Jesus. Jesus doesn’t call on any other name because He’s using His own power, His own godly power.

Let’s take a look at another passage. Let’s look at Mark 5:1-20.

Mark 5:1-20 ESV-

¹They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. ² And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. ³ He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, ⁴ for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. ⁵ Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. ⁶ And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. ⁷ And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” ⁸ For he was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” ⁹ And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” ¹⁰ And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. ¹¹ Now a great herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside, ¹² and they begged him, saying, “Send us to the pigs; let us enter them.” ¹³ So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the pigs; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the sea. ¹⁴ The herdsmen fled and told it in the city and in the country. And people came to see what it was that had happened. ¹⁵ And they came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed man, the one who had had the legion, sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid. ¹⁶ And those who had seen it described to them what had happened to the demon-possessed man and to the pigs. ¹⁷ And they began to beg Jesus to depart from their region. ¹⁸ As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed with demons begged him that he might be with him. ¹⁹ And he did not permit him but said to him, “Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” ²⁰ And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled.

Why does the demon call Jesus “The Most High God”? Once again, the demon or demon-possessed man might be trying to get the upper hand on Jesus by calling him by his name. He might be trying gain power or authority over Jesus. Why does Mark states in Mark 5:8 that Jesus had already said, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit”? Because in Mark 5:9, Jesus asks for the demon name. Mark wants to make it clear that Jesus never needed his name to cast him out. The deed was already done.

One thing I do want to point out is the people’s reaction. The best way I can do it with is with an analogy…

 

Imagine you are in a city, in one of the parks. There’s a madman in the park, going off on crazy ramblings. All of a sudden, a homeless man, with shaggy hair beard, ragged clothes, and a shopping call full of junk, walks by. All of a sudden, the madman begins freaking out, screaming and yelling even louder, begging this homeless man for his life! Then the homeless man yells something at him and walks way. Now, the madman is dressed in a 3-piece suit, speaking perfect English, perfectly sane and acting like everyone else.

That is what is happening in Mark 5:1-20. Jesus most likely came from a lower class family, and he probably looked like it too. And here comes that average, lower class man, and the demons freak out when they see them. And he has the power to rid people of demons. It leaves the people amazed, astonished, and even scared. They don’t know how to deal with him, so they just send him away.

Let’s look at one more passage. Let’s look at one of those general mentions of a demon possession, and pay close attention to the Pharisees’ reaction. The passage is Matthew 12:22-32.

Matthew 12:22-32 ESV-

²² Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. ²³ And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” ²⁴ But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” ²⁵ Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. ²⁶ And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? ²⁷ And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. ²⁸ But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. ²⁹ Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. ³⁰ Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. ³¹ Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³² And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Where did the Pharisees got the idea that Jesus must be Beelzebub, the prince of demons? It goes back to cultural idea of how to exorcise demons. According to the culture, you need to call upon a higher being for the power to cast out a supernatural being. Sometimes this call was on demons to take out other demons. Ironically, this person would make himself or herself demon-possessed to de-demonize someone else! This was a common practice of witch doctors. The Pharisees might have known of this practice, and accused Jesus of it. In essence, they were accusing Jesus of being a witch doctor and being demon-possessed. How does Jesus respond? Jesus not only denies it with pure logical argument (division only tears down), but he uses that against the Pharisees! The Pharisees also practiced demon exorcisms, even using the common formula stated above. If Jesus was demon-possessed to cast out demons, then surely the Pharisees must be as well! But if the Pharisees are not demon-possessed, then neither is Jesus.

Conclusion

Jesus truly displayed His authority every time he cast out a demon. He never needed any help from an object. He never had to say any magic words. He didn’t even need to know the demon’s name. Just being Jesus, by being God, it’s all Jesus needed to cast out demons. For some, it struck fear, so much they just wanted Jesus to leave. For others, it struck awe and amazement, so much that they wanted to follow Jesus. I hope the next time you read or hear about Jesus casting out a demon, you’ll be struck with the awe and amazement.

Education + References = Authority?

If your computer crashed, would you go someone who has a degree in computer programming or geology? Obviously, you would go to the one with the computer programming degree. If you got the flu, would you go see someone who went to med school or someone who went to law school? You’d obviously go to the med student over the law student. If your car won’t start, do you go to a mechanic or a carpenter? Once again, the answer should be clear: mechanic. I hope it’s obvious where I am going with this. When we need help with something, we usually want a professional or some kind of expert to assist us. To determine if they are an expert, we usually want some kind of credentials, like an education, job experience, or references. Is the same true for the Christian faith? In 1^st century Israel, the Jews believed credentials were very important. They needed those credentials to accept a rabbi’s teaching. Today, we’ll talk about how a rabbi got credentials, why it seemed to the Jews like Jesus had no authority, and why it might have taken a little more faith for the Jews to believe in Jesus.

The Gospels don’t use the term “credentials,” but they use something close to it. Go read Matthew 7:28,29 and Mark 1:22,27. What’s the common word used in these passages? Authority. As you can tell from both passages, the Jews cared about credentials, or authority. Where did the typical Jewish rabbi get his authority from? First, he got it from his education.

In 1^st century Israel, school was not required for children, but most Jews believed a good education was mandated by God in Deuteronomy (4:9; 6:7,8; 11:19-21), so they would send their children. Children began school at the age of 5 or 6, like they do here in America. School was held most of the time in the synagogue. The class size averaged around 25 students because if a teacher had more than 25 students, he needed an assistant, and if a teacher had more than 40 students, he needed a second teacher. Some schools had girls, while other schools did not, so scholars cannot clearly decide if girls were or were not allowed in school, or why or why not a girl would or would not be allowed. In school, the students learned reading and writing in Hebrew (and maybe Greek), the Torah, the Talmud, and other Rabbinic teaching. The teaching style was mainly repetition and rote memorization.

Jesus most likely had this education because Jesus was literate, and his father Joseph was most likely a good, law-abiding Jew.

After completing school between ages 12 and 13, most boys ended their education to learn the family trade for their occupation. Girls would prepare to be married. The smartest boys, however, would continue their education in what we might call an “internship.” A rabbi would select a student who he thought had potential and that student would become his disciple. The student’s job, as a disciple, would be to learn everything from his rabbi, so much that he could fully imitate his rabbi. This usually included memorizing the whole Hebrew Bible (what we call the Old Testament), as well as his rabbi’s teachings.

Jesus most likely did not have any schooling past what we would call “8^th grade,” which is after turning 13, because none of the New Testament writers mention it. If Jesus would have had this education, the Bible most likely would have mentioned it because it would have given Jesus instantly credibility. By not having this academic training (or at least not mentioning it), every audience listening to Jesus, from the original listeners, to the original readers, to the listeners and readers of today, would just have to take His word for it.

Where else did a Rabbi get his credibility? By quoting other rabbis! Hear what Sanhedrin 2:1–5 has to say about lighting lamps on the Sabbath:

“1. With what may they light [the Sabbath lamp] and with what may they not light it? They may not use cedar-fibre or uncarded flax or raw silk or a wick of bast or a wick of the desert or duck-weed; or pitch or wax or castor-oil or [Heave-offering] oil that [is become unclean and] must be burnt, or [grease from] the fatty tail or tallow. Nahum the Mede says: They may use melted tallow. But the Sages say: It is all one whether it is melted or not melted: they may not light therewith.

2. [Heave-offering] oil that [is become unclean and] must be burnt may not be used for lighting on a Festival-day. Rabbi Ishamel says: Tar may not be used out of respect for the Sabbath. But the Sages permit all kinds of oils: sesame-oil, nut-oil, fish-oil, colocynth-oil, tar, and naphtha. Rabbi Tarfon says: They may use only olive-oil.

3. Naught that comes from a tree may be used for lighting [the Sabbath lamp] excepting flax; and naught that comes from a tree can contract uncleanness by overshadowing excepting flax. If a wick made from [a piece of] cloth was twisted but not singed, Rabbi Eliezer declares it susceptible to uncleanness and not to be used for lighting [the Sabbath lamp]; but Rabbi Akiba says: It is not susceptible to uncleanness and it may be used for lighting [the Sabbath lamp]

4. A man may not pierce an egg-shell and fill it with oil and put it on the opening of the lamp so that the oil will drip from it; [it is forbidden] even if it was made of earthenware (but Rabbi Judah permits it); but if the potter had joined it [with the lamp] from the first, it is permitted in that it is a single vessel. A man may not fill a dish with oil and put it beside a lamp and put the end of the wick in it so that it will absorb [the oil]. But Rabbi Judah permits it.

5. If a man put out the lamp [on the night of Sabbath] from fear of the gentiles or of thieves or of an evil spirit, or to suffer one that was sick to sleep, he is not culpable; [but if he did it with a mind] to spare the lamp or to spare the oil or to spare the wick, he is culpable. But Rabbi Jose declares him exempt in every case excepting that of the wick, since he thereby forms charcoal.”

I hope you didn’t get lost in the rabbis’ debate over lighting lamps on the Sabbath. The point is not whether or not this is a good or bad ruling. The point is how every rabbi carefully quoted every Rabbi for every view out there. Notice the constant quoting of Rabbis. Rabbis got their authority from quoting each other, mainly in the Talmud. Personally, it reminded me of how I wrote my Bible papers in undergrad. For example, listen to my paper on the background of Jonah. (Remember to read the in-text citation to get the point!)

By most scholars, Jonah is accepted as the author of the book. From New Testament references, it is known as fact that Jonah is a real person. Jonah was the son of Amitti (Willmington 473). Jonah’s name means “dove” and his father’s name, Amitti, means “true” (Spence-Jones v). Neither name has any symbolic meaning to their character (Stuart Jon. 1). The verse from 2 Kings 14:25 tells us Jonah was from the town Gath Hepher. Gath Hepher was founded in the territory allotted to the tribe of Zebulun when Israel settled (Hannah 1:1461). Later, Gath Hepher would be considered in the region of Galilee (Henry Jon. 1:1). Nothing is known about Jonah’s early life. Jewish legend makes Jonah the son of the widow at Zarephath that Elijah resurrected, but there is no Biblical proof for that (Kiel and Delitzsch 10:255). Not much is told about Jonah’s job as prophet before he was called to go to Nineveh. Jonah is considered one of the later prophets (Richards 546). The prophet’s preaching probably proceeded immediately after Elijah and Elisha (Hannah 1:1461). When Jonah received his call to go to Nineveh, he was probably an elderly man (Kiel and Delitzsch 10:255).  “Jonah might well be called the Old Testament’s ‘patriotic prophet’” (Richards 546). Jonah would bring messages from the Lord to Jeroboam II (Henry Jon. 1:1). Jonah was always glad to inform the king that God will flourish Israel with wealth and a strong army (Richards 546). Jonah must have liked to do this, for he seems to have a strong pride in his country and doesn’t like its opponents (Stuart Jon. 1). Apart from this information, nothing more about Jonah’s life is known (Smith and Page 205). No biographical information of Jonah appears in the book, as typical for a prophetic book (Stuart Jon. 1).

Once again, I hope you didn’t get too caught up in the background information on Jonah. My point is not the information on Jonah, but rather how I have to carefully cite my sources to build my credibility in my thesis.

It seems both back then and today our authority comes from quoting the scholars, experts and elders of the past. But Jesus was different.

Read John 7:15-17 in the NASB, ESV, KJV and NIV (both 1984 and 2011 ed.) and see how the wording is changed. If you don’t have all these Bibles available, it can be done at Bible Gateway.

The Greek for “such learning,” when translated literally, means “knows his letters.” As stated above, this verse acknowledges that Jesus got his basic schooling. He knows how to read and write Hebrew. What puzzles the Jews is that Jesus “has never been educated” (NASB), “has never studied” (ESV), “has never learned” (KJV), “without having studied” (NIV84), “without being taught” (NIV2011). The Greek word, memathekos, means “to acquire information as the result of instruction.” The word is used in both an informal or formal context. In most occurrences, this is used in a moral context. What baffles the Jews is that Jesus never got his discipleship from a Rabbi. How does Jesus know so much? Does he really know much, if he hasn’t gotten the proper training?

How does Jesus answer? His authority is from his Father.

Jesus declares that he does not need authority from any other man. He teaches on his own authority. Where did he get his authority? From the Father. The Jewish teachers of the law had thought that their authority came from the Talmud or other Rabbinic writings, but they forgot that true authority came from God and His Word. If they would have remembered that, they would have recognized Jesus as the Christ. Unfortunately, they did not, and instead they decided he wasn’t the Messiah because he did not have any credentials from education or other Rabbis.