Wednesday Night Bible Study: Matthew 15-16, In Which I Single Handedly Take Down Christendom With One Verse
Wednesday, February 24th, 2010
So in the poll, Revelation is winning for our next book to study! You guys hate me, don’t you? 
I might have to sneak a few of my parents’ Revelation material before covering that one. They have a nice collection of Hal Lindsey and Pat Robertson books on the Rev. My mom says it’s her favorite book. No comment on that. Anyways, if you don’t want to study Revelation (or if you do!), be sure to vote. I’ve moved the poll to the sidebar on the right.
Sorry for skipping out last week! I needed a blogging break, and I’m glad I took one. Maybe I’ll do a Sunday Sermon to compensate. 
Anyways, to the good stuff. I can’t find my Bible anywhere. Julieanne has taken a liking to my old Bibles, so maybe she ran off with it. I have no idea. So now I’m reading on Bible Gateway with the rest of you (it’s that or read the KJV or Message versions!).
Matthew 15 (click to follow):
So the Pharisees are disgusted that the disciples don’t wash their hands before they eat. How did I miss this before? Shouldn’t Jesus, who is best buds with God, know about germs and how important it is to wash hands? I kinda have to go with the Pharisees on this one: Yuck! In true Jesus fashion, he ignores the question and accuses the Pharisees of breaking the law, too. In fact, he actually gets pretty mad, calls them hypocrites, and quotes Scripture at them. Hmmm, maybe some of these crazy evangelicals are doing what Jesus would have done! In psychology, we call that a defense mechanism. He then tells everyone that it’s not what goes into your mouth that’s unclean, but what comes out of it. Ummm. Germs, Jesus. Germs! But of course, if you could heal every sickness, I guess it wouldn’t really matter. I wonder if he was planning on curing everyone who got Hepatitis from listening to him? So of course the Pharisees are offended. I can’t say I blame them. Really, they just asked him a question, calling him out on his own hypocrisy. Jesus was pretty immature in the level of animosity in his response. He then talks in riddles again, saying that any plant his dad didn’t plant would be pulled up by the roots, and talks about how they are the blind leading the blind, and they were all going to fall into a pit. Right. Moving on to when Jesus calls his disciples “dull”.
Yes, he did. “Dull” as in dimwitted because they couldn’t understand the non-answers that came out of his mouth. Really, the way he treats them, I am not entirely sure how he has any disciples. Instead of getting offended that Jesus calls them the 1st century version of “morons”, they so politely ask him to just explain himself. But of course, Jesus answers in MORE “parables”. Yes, because they didn’t understand the first time, the best thing to do is tell an even more confusing riddle about poop (see vs. 17). Then he kind of explains, but using the same words he did above, still having no clue about germs. I harp on that a bit because, especially with leaders like Bill Gothard, you hear about how there were practical purposes to many rules in the Old Testament. The Israelites didn’t know about germs, but God did; hence the rules on meat and cleanliness. Therefore, we can trust that God knows what he’s doing, even if we mere mortals do not. But if Jesus was God (as Baptists and like-minded denominations believe), why didn’t he know about germs and why God gave the hand washing rule in the first place?
So then Jesus reluctantly heals a Canaanite woman’s daughter, because he’s just nice like that. Why did Gentiles latch onto Jesus so quickly again? He’s not very nice to them in the Bible, so I don’t think he loves everyone equally.
So, if you thought Jesus feeding 5,000 was great, he does it again. Only not quite so good. He only fed 4,000 people this time. But FIRST, he heals a whole bunch of people! Mute people can talk! Deaf people can hear! Blind people can see! Whole arms grow back! Oh, wait, not the last part. God really doesn’t like to heal amputees, does he? He might care about people more than birds of the field, but apparently he likes lizards more than people. Anyways, for whatever reason, 4,000 people went out to a “remote” place, and brought no food. They must have all been “dull”, because they didn’t have McDonald’s back then. Why would you go out to the middle of nowhere and not bring anything to eat? Sure, there would have been some poor people who couldn’t afford lunch, but wouldn’t the poorest be, um, working instead of taking the day off to listen to a dude who couldn’t speak a coherent sentence? But for whatever reason, Jesus is super nice and made so much food out of 7 loaves and 2 fish that he had seven baskets left over.
So those damn Pharisees just won’t leave Jesus alone. They ask him for a sign that he’s the Messiah. Apparently, they haven’t been paying attention to all the people Jesus feeds and heals. Makes you wonder if maybe some of those things have been exaggerated, hum? Instead of a sign, Jesus gives them yet another answer that sidesteps the question. Jesus would have made a great politician. He never answers anything directly. At this point, I don’t expect a straight answer, and I just get annoyed. It’s not that I don’t understand what he’s trying to say (at least not all the time), but who does that? Who goes around and talks about what color the sky is or the digestion of food when someone asks a rather simple question? People in psych wards, law, and politics, that’s who! 
So the disciples go on the lake, but forget bread. Really, why would you ever bother with taking food anywhere since Jesus can just make some magically appear anyways? Getting bread together just seems like a waste of time. And where are they getting money to buy stuff anyways? So Jesus gives them a riddle. He says, “Be aware of the yeast of the Sadducees!” So after trying to figure out what the hell he was talking about, Jesus once again verbally abuses them, and tells them how could they not know that the “yeast of the Pharisees/Sadducees” really meant the “teachings of the Pharisees/Sadducees”? Yeah, I’m a little lost on the connection there myself. I have no idea what yeast has to do with teaching or why he couldn’t just say “teaching” instead of “yeast” in the first place. Seriously, that’ the only difference in the sentences.
After that, Jesus asks Peter who he thought Jesus was. Peter says “Christ, Son of the living God” (as opposed to the dead one, I guess!). Jesus is very pleased by that answer and tells Peter he’s going to be the rock on which Jesus will build his church (ouch!). So why is the majority of the New Testament made of Paul’s writings? No matter! Jesus tells the disciples not to tell anyone he was the Christ. Oh, yes, he did. So Jesus doesn’t want you to know about him today!
Then Jesus predicts his death, closing the chapter with a rather problematic passage for Christians:
Then Jesus said to his disciples,
“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Um, okay. First: “and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.” So according to Jesus himself, it’s what we do that gets us into heaven. Not faith, but “righteousness.” Which doesn’t make any sense in the context of a bunch of other verses in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, but I won’t get into all of that right now. So much for the Bible being consistent! Secondly, the Very Big problem: “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Are any of the 12 disciples still alive? Anyone? No? Churches try to get around this by playing all sorts of gymnastics with the text, but the truth is written right there. You can’t get around it any easier than you can get around anything else in the Bible you don’t like or that doesn’t jive with your viewpoint on life. Sure, you can get a PhD and explain it away. But if you’re going to explain it away, why not explain away some other passages in Scripture? The homosexuality verses, the anti-woman verses, etc. Take your pick! Heck, by playing the same gymnastics, you can get around the “Jesus is the Son of God” passages. Why cherry pick getting around the passages you don’t like? The entire foundation of Christianity crumbles on this passage, because it undermines everything else in the Bible. If not through literal interpretation, the games you have to play to get around it. And if the game you play works on this passage, why not every other passage? Where’s the authority? It’s gone. If you can get around this passage, why shouldn’t I believe there’s a way around every other one?
Thoughts? Reactions? And don’t forget to vote on which section of the Bible to study next!
Tags: Bible study, Gospel of Matthew, Matthew, secular Bible study
Loading ...
February 24th, 2010 at 11:42 am
I’d hate to have to defend any of this crap – but is it not possible, WRT to the yeast/teaching, that it’s just badly translated and that maybe there is a cultural element that was lost in translation.
Of course, if that is the case, that only makes it worse because anyone following this in English would have to be completely daft to defend it. (Overtones of “Blessed are the Cheesemakers”)
February 24th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Great post!
The cherry-picking champions of the world are evangelicals!
The Bible College I graduated from even had a class: “Cherry-picking 101″ (I think it was called something else)! More liberal christians are happy to allegorize these passages – or even the whole bible – , but evangelicals have painted themselves into a corner with their literal take on the bible. THEN they grab the “allegory” or “metaphor” jungle vine to handily swing out of that corner. Totally hypocritical and disingenuous.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
LOL! Very funny post. You are completely misinterpreting what Jesus’ is saying, but you are at least funny. Look at the context of what Jesus said int he above passage, not metaphorically, but literally. He just finished saying that they must deny there old ways and follow Him. That those who shoose to live their own life will die but those who live or die for me will be saved from death. Now if you take the fact that Jesus said that men will be judged on what they have “done” and realize that Jesus said it in the same paragraph that He said the above, then it is obvious that the “done” he is talking about refers to whether or not a man has given his life to Jesus. He is not talking about “works”. he is talking about the act of following Jesus. Anyway, sorry to bother you, just ran across this blog in doing some research on a paper I am writing and thought I would clarify that for you.
Have a great day!
February 24th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
David, that’s always a possibility, though I still don’t understand why he couldn’t be succinct! Didn’t he understand that people would be trying to apply his farmer analogies meant for ancient Middle Easterns to modern English Western world???
Portwes, yeah, I thought about the liberal thing, but if it’ an analogy here and there, maybe the whole Bible is an analogy. I know there are universalists out there who do think that there is truth in every religion, but with the possible exception of UU, you don’t go to church to hear a passage from the Quran! So somewhere in there, they still think Jesus is superior in some way. There are devout Christians who don’t believe the whole Bible and I don’t understand them, either!
Robby, Okay. I didn’t really take it that way, but I see how it can be interpreted like that. Yet another reason God should write a new edition of his word. Hmmm, maybe that will be my next project! Instead of Paul and Peter, God will just use ME to clarify all of this muddled nonsense!
February 24th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
In my experience it is not ducked at all. Both the gospel writers and the writers of the early epistles thought the second coming was imminent. This theology changes over the course of NT writing: we can see the idea develop. It is completely uncontroversial in mainstream biblical studies.
But obviously doctrines are more important than scripture for many, so even in a secular school you get plenty of students who want to do the Robby thing and cherry pick meanings. And there are plenty of resources for them. Its a shame, the vast majority of believers are never given the opportunity to see, engage with and make decisions about the vast majority of biblical scholarship. Instead they are encouraged, as Robby’s example shows, to laugh at such folly.
I would, however, be cautious saying that Jesus said this at all – that is by no means a sound conclusion. It is pretty clear that a large proportion of the words that the gospel writers put in Jesus’s mouth betray their own biases and theologies. None more so than Matthew (okay, maybe John more so than Matthew, but still).
February 24th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Robby, OK, so you explained away the “every man will be judged according to his works” part to fit your evangelical theology. We’ll give you that.
But please explain the very plain saying, “Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” The “Son of Man coming in his kingdom” in evangelical theology has ALWAYS meant the Rapture, or the Thousand Year Reign. Because if it’s twisted to mean during Jesus’ lifetime, he didn’t have a kingdom (unless it was in his mind’s imagination).
So honestly, please explain that one for us.
February 24th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
**Yes, he did. “Dull” as in dimwitted because they couldn’t understand the non-answers that came out of his mouth. Really, the way he treats them, I am not entirely sure how he has any disciples.**
Really goes against the concept of a patient God who understands all our weaknesses, doesn’t it? Jesus doesn’t seem to have a lot of patience if his disciples don’t immediately get it.
I know there’s lots of ways to explain how Jesus saying that those wouldn’t taste death doesn’t really mean that he was coming back that soon. But according to The Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, “Peasant societies, as a rule, are present-oriented. There is little concern for the future unless it is forthcoming in something already in the present. For example, a child is seen as forthcoming in a pregnant mother or a crop in a growing field. Similarly, the coming of God’s benefaction is mediated by the Son of Man is forthcoming, in the generation of those following Jesus, before some standing there die; hence the urgency to follow Jesus in the style so vaguely described in vv. 24-26.”
In terms of the rewarding people for what is done, I always interpreted that as a works-reward sort of thing. Strong’s Concordance lists the word as “Praxis” — practice, i.e. (concretely) an act; by extension, a function:–deed, office, work.
February 24th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
Yeah, cherry picking. But what else can they do? They have a 2+k year old text of old wine that they’re trying to pour into the new wine skins of modern culture, so there are bound to be difficulties. As you point out, Jesus didn’t even fit into his own culture since the disciples had to scratch their heads and ask for explanations. Now that we no longer have the cultural assumptions that he did, the inconsistencies become glaring. So Paul says “all is lawful, but not all is expedient.” Smells of a True Scotsman to me; trying to have it both ways.
February 24th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
I have an interest in the history of science, so I was reading about Cardinal Bellarmine (who prosecuted Galileo), and… Bellarmine decided scripture could be interpreted as: literal (either simple or figurative), or spiritual (either allegorical, tropological, or anagogical).
These are the kind of contortions needed for an intellectual to match reality (as revealed by science) to religion in 1600. True science hadn’t even been born yet! Second trimester, maybe.
No wonder the liberal Christians I know have just given up, and don’t even try to appeal to rationality anymore.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:01 am
@Robby
It is always very entertaining when a theist does a google search for “atheist blog” then tries to drop one or two sentences figuring his enormous helping of apologetics will instantly convert the hethans.
Except for the fact that many of us stopped being christian after intensive study of the Bible (aside from Laura, there are many, many former preachers who now count themselves as atheist/agnostic). We read the bible, more carefully than you have. We have heard all the apologetics, and found them lame.
Like when one theist tried to claim that the Romans were very nice, and they were forced to execute criminals, but they really didn’t want to do it because they were so nice. Or the ones that say that the book of Jonah is a verifiable fact because he didn’t get swallowed by a whale, it was a fish.
So, do you care to address any of the other points Laura made, or are you just going to cherry pick the one that you think you can debate and ignore the rest?
February 25th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Never quite understood why being swallowed by a fish was more survivable than being swallowed by a whale . . .
February 25th, 2010 at 11:46 am
@portwes – Because by suggesting an, as yet unknown, species you avoid having to deal with the fact that the biologies of known species would be make un-survivable.
February 25th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Preterism is one answer or attempted solution to “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
February 25th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Yes, preterism (for my non-theological readers, that means that all of the prophecies in the NT have already been carried out) is something I ascribed to at one point, though I mostly used it to explain Revelation. I never studied it in depth, so maybe you can explain better how to apply it in this case. To me, it doesn’t make sense to apply it here, because I don’t really see how it fits. Probably too many years of evangelical theology. Do you mean that he meant the coming spread of Christianity as his kingdom? Other places in the Bible talk about heaven when they talk about a kingdom, so it still feels stretchy to apply it here.
February 25th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Cool post, Laura! Always interesting to find out what the “good” book really says. Like Julia Sweeney’s album – have you heard that? In it, she wonders how many people that profess belief in the Bible have actually read it – my guess is not many.
February 25th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
You know, the weird thing is that I DID read it while a Christian. The whole thing. Some parts of it multiple times. But I had Jesus Glasses on and didn’t see the inconsistencies. I guess when you read it to TRY to get some sort of divine knowledge or have a spiritual experience, you just don’t notice these things. It’s when you read it completely objectively, I guess. I don’t know. Maybe, too, I had heard so many sermons and Sunday school lessons on how Jesus is love, and blah blah blah, since I was a baby, I just didn’t notice because of that, either.
February 25th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Another way of explaining Jesus’ words at the end of Matthew 16 is to link them to the Transfiguration in Matthew 17. I.e., that was a manifestation of Jesus coming in His kingdom. Notice how Mark’s version of these words differs from Matthew’s and better connects Jesus’ words with the Transfiguration.
February 25th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Sadly, I can see some holes in your arguments here.
Jesus was always seen as the Son of God and the Son of Man, both perfect and imperfect at the same time (yes, I know…). His obviously human frailties (such as anger and name-calling) will be blamed on the human side of his heritage — by extension, blaming his mother Mary. That’s a small argument though, because how can you begin to argue against a paradox?
I must also be reading the passage you quoted above differently than you do:
Why does this refer to the Second Coming? I always read that passage as meaning that referring to the Ascension — after all, isn’t his Kingdom heaven, not here on Earth? And wasn’t this interview carried about before his execution and alleged resurrection?
I don’t want to see holes in them, since I believe the Bible belongs in the fiction section of Barnes and Noble, but we are engaged in being honest here….
February 25th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
In that case, Chad, why doesn’t Jesus say “GOING to his Kingdom”? It’s twisting the english language a bit to say that “coming” actually means “going”, isn’t it?
I don’t think you are very aware of evangelical theology: they would NEVER allow for imperfections in Jesus’ behavior or character or thinking. How can God be imperfect?
I think Laura is stating a case against the evangelical view of the gospel. You posit something that is not a traditional evangelical interpretation. But I might just be reading you comment wrongly . . .
February 25th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
You could argue from the language angle, but the bible wasn’t originally written in English. Just thought I’d bring that up in case it wasn’t fresh in memory. Couple that with the fact that the phrase “coming home” and “going home” essentially mean the same thing, and I don’t think we’re stretching too much.
As for evangelical theory? Ha! Of course I’m not up on evangelical theory — I wouldn’t know which one to be up on! There are many of them, aren’t there? Odd, considering how the Bible’s supposed to be one truth and all that…
I wasn’t aware that Laura was positing a case against an evangelical theory; I thought we were simply looking at the bible and thinking critically about its contents. My sincere apologies.
February 25th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Interesting series of posts. I remember reading a book written by a Jewish Rabbi(can’t remember his name) and he said that Jesus didn’t really teach anything extraordinary. Even in the story of Jonah, God was willing to forgive the Nineveh’s if they repented. How is what Jesus taught different?
If Paul hadn’t come along then the early Christians would have remained a minor Jewish sect. By getting rid of the practice of circumcision and not requiring followers to keep kosher, he appealed to the Romans. I have to admit, I am not overly fond of Paul.
Eventually, I will have to reread the New Testament without the biases I learned as a former Christian. You are pointing out a lot of things that are I never really thought about before.
By the way, all through the four gospels, Jesus makes statements that make it appear-at least to me-that works are necessary for one’s salvation.
February 25th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Because your interpretation is that Jesus will die before some of the other people alive at the same time. That is not news. It’s not the least bit surprising. It’s not even worth mentioning! The Second Coming, on the other hand – that is news.
February 25th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
It must be pointed out that Sweeny was raised Catholic. They’re not very big on reading the Bible, and haven’t been since before they killed William Tyndale for translating it into English in the early 1500s.
So while I would wager that many Catholics and many “casually religious” (yeah, they believe, but don’t think about it much) haven’t thoroughly read the Bible, my guess is many other Christians have. The fundamentalists have “Jesus Glasses”, as Laura said, and the more liberal Christians… I don’t know, I honestly don’t understand them.
February 25th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Meh, I wasn’t seriously trying to bring down any theology single handedly with one verse. I was just being a bit light hearted to keep it interesting. So yes, I’m just reading the Bible at face value and critiquing it. It’s not what I had planned to do when I started this, but it’s what happened. I don’t put a lot of fancy theology in there because 1) I am a bit rusty on it myself, 2) it would make my posts be ten times longer and I would never get to fully explain it all without writing an entire book, and 3) it’s actually rather dull.
On the theories of English and theology: here’s the problem with it. It’s still playing gymnastics with the text. Yes, there’s preterism, and there are definitely translation errors throughout the entire text. But we only say “translation error!” if there’s something we don’t like. But what about the parts we DO like? Why couldn’t there be translation errors or exaggeration on other, more important passages of the Bible? Like the Jesus is the Son of God chapters, or Jesus healed a bunch of people. Etc. If you can get around something so clearly written as “Some of you won’t taste death before they see Jesus in his kingdom”, can’t you get around just about anything else? I would hardly call the transfiguration a “kingdom.” That doesn’t seem to be what the passage is implying. It does seem to refer to the second coming. I’m pretty sure it’s referenced later in Matthew too, but I read it as I write it so I could be wrong.
February 25th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
PS Hello, Debrand! I recognize you!
February 25th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
“Sadly, I can see some holes in your arguments here. Jesus was always seen as the Son of God and the Son of Man, both perfect and imperfect at the same time (yes, I know…). His obviously human frailties (such as anger and name-calling) will be blamed on the human side of his heritage — by extension, blaming his mother Mary. That’s a small argument though, because how can you begin to argue against a paradox?”
So Jesus = Spock? Everyone always blames his emotional problems on his frail human mother, too. And he’s also generally, but not always patient with the stupid humans surrounding him. Although I can’t see Spock in sandals in a beard, unless it was that mirror universe episode.
February 25th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
What, one fictional character can’t be like another one?
February 26th, 2010 at 2:12 am
LOL. But don’t forget The Omega Glory where Spock is accused of being the devil, and the Yangs’ holy book has a picture of the devil that looks like Leonard Nimoy posed for it. So maybe devil=Spock=Jesus.
Oops! Did I just blaspheme against the Holy Spirit?
February 26th, 2010 at 8:03 am
I know of several Baptists(big denomination here in the southeast) who have read the bible from cover to cover multiple times. They seem able to overlook passages that don’t correspond to whatever theology that they feel a Christian must uphold.
Hello Laura, I am stalking you from Free Jinger. LOL
February 26th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Stalk away!
February 26th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Laura, you should check out skepticsannotatedbible.com – you are certain to find it a handy reference when doing your theology blogging (which is fine reading btw, kudos)
February 26th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
OMG, I am suddenly short of breath! I have found people who can annunciate(sp?) what I’ve felt for way too long! Although I don’t have the scholarly ability to debate intelligently on the Holy Script versus common sense aspect of what really may have happened, I’ve always felt that the whole Jesus thing had the air of, well….a recording of the life of one who was perhaps a bit unbalanced. That perhaps the whole thing was a social experiment to watch what happened when such a being was loosed upon the social scene of a Palestine 2000 years ago.
May 10th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
rich h- I am very sorry if you thought that my explanation of the verse that I talked about in my previous reply was meant to somehow bring you to our side. As I stated above, I stumbled across this blog in doing some research and thoght I would throw my 2 cents in on one of the questions posed. I was acutally very intrigued by the post and saved in my favorites so that I could come back and address some of the other questions. so which questions would you like me to address.
someone asked me to resond to this verse- “Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
The answer is quite simple- If you continue reading past the tomb part of the story, you will see that Jesus actually did reveal himself a second time to His disciples before whooshing away to the big party in the sky. Now I am not sure how I could be cherry picking here. It’s pretty plain and simple. He said he would revela himself again to them and he did. didn’t take some “out there” interpretation to see that.
BTW- I am in no way a theist, in fact I got quite the chuckle when I read that.
any others you would like me to address?
May 10th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
BTW- the verse I just talked about has nothing to do with the rapture. In fact, the word “rapture” is never mentioned in the Bible.