Jesus said, ‘that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth from the
blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berechiah whom you murdered
between the sanctuary and the altar.’
Objection: Zechariah was the son of Jehoiada not Berechiah (2 Chronicles 24.20-12).
This is a much used argument against Jesus and the Gospels in Jewish circles. We
do not deny that it creates a problem, but not an insurmountable one. Certainly 2
Chronicles 24.20-22 does describe the murder of Zechariah son of Jehoiada in the
days of King Joash and Zechariah 1.1 does describe the prophet Zechariah as the son
Michael Brown in his book ‘Answering Jewish objections to Jesus’ (Volume 4, page
111-116) offers a number of possible answers to this.
1. Zechariah the prophet was in fact martyred and Jesus was referring to this event.
This is quite a weak argument and the Bible does not record how Zechariah died.
2. There was another Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah and this Zechariah was
martyred. Again this is quite a weak argument and Jesus was referring to a known
3. Zechariah son of Jehoiada also bore the family name, ‘son of Berechiah’, probably
meaning the grandson of Berechiah. Interestingly the Targum to Lamentations 2.20
which in the Hebrew text reads, ‘Should priest and prophet be killed in the sanctuary
of the Lord?’ makes reference to the killing of ‘Zechariah the son of Iddo the high
priest and faithful prophet’. Zechariah the prophet is described as the ‘son of
Berechiah, the son of Iddo’ in Zechariah 1.1, but as the son of Iddo in Ezra 5.1
and 6.14. This raises two possibilities. The biblical prophet was murdered and
both the New Testament and the Targum bear witness to this. Zechariah the son of
Jehoiada was also known as Zechariah the son of Berechiah (as Zechariah the prophet
was also known as the son of Iddo). Berechiah meaning ‘the LORD is blessing’ is
a common name in the Tenach with at least six other people sharing this name (see
1 Chronicles 3.20, 6.39, 9.16, 15.23, 2 Chronicles 28.12, Nehemiah 3.4).
4. An error may have crept into the New Testament when a scribe substituted the more
familiar name of Zechariah son of Berechiah for Zechariah son of Jehoiada. There
are some Greek manuscripts of Matthew which preserve the reading Zechariah son of
Jehoiada. There is also a statement from Jerome (331-420 CE) stating that the Nazarenes
(Jewish followers of Jesus) had a Hebrew text of Matthew that read here Zechariah
son of Jehoiada. There are numerous statements from the early church pointing to
an original Hebrew version of Matthew.
Michael Brown points out that anti-missionaries pour scorn on this passage in Matthew
but would never attack Rabbinic writings for errors of much greater magnitude. He
gives the example of Genesis Rabbah 64.5 where reference is made to Jezebel’s persecution
of the prophets in the days of Jeremiah’s father Hilkiah. Jeremiah and Hilkiah lived
centuries after Jezebel.
B. Mark 2.25-26. Abiathar the high priest.
Jesus said ‘How he (David) entered the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high
priest and ate the showbread.’
Objection: Ahimelech was High Priest at that time not Abiathar. 1 Samuel 21.2.
The implication here is that Jesus made a mistake and did not know the Old Testament
text and was therefore not divine. There is also the possibility that Mark or Peter,
the generally agreed source of Mark’s Gospel, made a mistake in reporting what Jesus
According to 1 Samuel 21 Ahimelech was killed after David ate the showbread on the
orders of Saul along with his sons and only Abiathar escaped. Abiathar fled to
David in the cave of Adullam and went on to function as a priest during the 40 years
of David’s reign.
The words ‘in the days of’ can mean ‘in the time of’ Abiathar which is not the same
thing as saying that he was the one involved in the episode in question. The Bible
uses a general time frame on occasions to show the period in question for example
Luke 4:27 (‘in the time of Elisha’), Luke 3:2 (‘in the time of the high priest,
Annas and Caiaphas’).
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 116 proposes
that Mark's intention has been misunderstood in the translation of the passage. The
same grammatical construction occurs in Chapter 12:26, where it must be translated
'have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage concerning the Bush, how
God spoke unto him…?' The construction is designed to call attention to the section
of a biblical book where the reference is found… In Chapter 2:26 Mark may have inserted
the reference to Abiathar to indicate the section of the Samuel scroll in which the
incident could be located.
J P Holding writes about this: ‘To begin, the description of Abiathar as "high priest"
is not titular. Neither Ahimelech nor Abiathar are ever given the title in the OT,
though it is clear that Abiathar served as a leading priest (along with Zadok) and
Ahimelech may have ranked highly as well. The word for "high priest" is archierus,
a combination of hierus, or priest, and arche, a word most often meaning "beginning"
but also meaning supreme in rank or order. It does not mean Abiathar was "high priest"
but indicates that he was a great priest, a renowned priest.
Abiathar served David for the entirety of his reign of 40 years and had the privilege,
along with Zadok, of carrying the Ark of the Covenant, the most sacred Jewish religious
object. As a renowned priest, it is expected that in his days, the Law would be correctly
observed and his name would invoke the honouring of the law.
Jesus mentions Abiathar in order to say, in effect, "In the time of Abiathar, who
as a renowned priest was a real stickler for the law, and in whose days we would
expect the law to be followed, David and his friends were allowed to do this; yet
you say now that we can't do something similar? Are you a better judge of the law
than Abiathar and his contemporaries were?"
Bringing Abiathar into the picture -- and his composite record of service in the
entirety of the OT, by implication -- was therefore a subtle polemic against the
Pharisees' authority.’ J P Holding http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/abby.html
C. John 7.37-8. Rivers of living water.
Jesus said ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in
me as the scripture has said, out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’
Objection: Asher Norman says the Christian Bible does not give a citation for this
‘quote’ for the very good reason that there is no such scripture in the Jewish Bible.
While there is no direct quote that does say the exact words used by Jesus there
are a number of passages, a number of which refer to the Holy Spirit and speak of
the Lord as the fountain of life, the source of cleansing / living waters. Jesus
intended this statement to be the substance of a number of statements in the scriptures
rather than a verse which can be referred to by chapter and verse. Here are some
Isaiah 44.3: ‘You shall be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose
waters do not fail.
Isaiah 58.11: ‘For I will pour water on him who is thirsty, and floods on the dry
ground; I will pour My Spirit on your descendants.’
Isaiah 12.3: ‘Therefore with joy shall you draw water from the wells of salvation
(salvation = Yeshua, the Hebrew name for Jesus)’
Psalm 36.8-9: ‘They are abundantly satisfied with the fullness of Your house, and
You give them drink from the river of Your pleasures. For with You is the fountain
of life; in Your light we see light.’
Jeremiah 2.13: ‘(The LORD), the fountain of living waters’
Ezekiel 36.25: ‘Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean.
I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give
you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out
of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and
cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.’
The Lord is the ‘fountain of living waters’ and the Holy Spirit is the life giving
source of spiritual renewal and cleansing which is what Jesus is promising when He
says: ‘He who believes in me as the scripture has said, out of his heart shall flow
rivers of living water.’ Jesus promised the disciples that they would be ‘baptised’
in the Holy Spirit in Acts 1.4-8, ‘baptised’ being a term meaning immersed in water.
The fulfilment of this is the gift of the Holy Spirit at Succoth (Pentecost) in
Acts 2 which is the realisation of the promise given in John 7.
The work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer who repents of sin and receives
pardon and spiritual renewal through the gift of the Spirit is described is later
described by Paul in terms of ‘washing’ of water: ‘But when the kindness and the
love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness, which
we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us through the washing of regeneration
and renewing of the Holy Spirit whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus
Christ our Saviour.’ Titus 3.4-6.
The phrase used for ‘out of his heart’ in the verse in John 7.38 (Authorised Version
- Out of his belly) is used in scripture for what is in the midst of something, the
centre or heart. This means that the Holy Spirit will be placed within the believers
and flow out from them to others. Ezekiel 36.25-27, quoted above, speaks of the
LORD putting the spirit within the person, again typified by cleansing water. This
is the true experience of the Holy Spirit which Jesus was promising to the disciples
and is still available to all true believers today.
Asher Norman quotes Numbers 23.19 ‘God is not a man that He should lie’ and 1 Samuel
15.29 ‘The Strength of Israel (God) will not lie.’ He then says that Jesus lied
to the High Priest after his arrest. This is based on a supposed conflict between
John 18.20 where Jesus says ‘I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues
and in the Temple where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing’
and Mark 5.43 where we read ‘But he (Jesus) commanded them strictly that no one should
know it.’ This was the occasion of a miraculous healing of the daughter of the ruler
of the synagogue (Jairus). Whatever Jesus’ reasons for not wanting this event spread
are not made clear in the Gospel but it can hardly be said that he was acting deceitfully.
He had just performed a miracle of healing which no doubt Jairus was overjoyed about.
A possible reason for this reticence to publicise the event was that He did not
want a huge crowd to gather at that moment.
I am surprised that Asher Norman does not quote Matthew 16.20 in this connection
which fits in more with his allegation that Jesus was not telling people everything
about his mission: ‘Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one
that He was Jesus the Christ (Messiah).’ The most probable explanation for this
is that at this point the disciples themselves did not fully understand the nature
of Jesus messianic mission as is evidenced by the following verses: ‘From that time
Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many
things from the elders and chief priests and be killed and be raised the third day.’
Since this does not fit in with the disciples’ expectation of the Messianic programme,
Peter responds by saying ‘Far be it from You, Lord, this shall not happen to You!’
for which statement He is roundly rebuked by Jesus. In His resurrection appearances
Jesus explains the significance of the events that have just taken place: ‘And He
opened their understanding that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said
to them, ‘Thus it was necessary for the Christ (Messiah) to suffer and to rise from
the dead the third day and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached
in His name to all nations beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these
things.’ He told them to wait for the gift of the Holy Spirit which would endue
them with power to bring this message into all the world.
When Jesus said, ‘I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and
in the Temple where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing’ (John
18.20), He was telling the truth. The Gospels record times when He did this in the
hearing of the Scribes and Pharisees, including occasions when He was questioned
and examined by them (Matthew 22, John 7-10). To accuse Jesus of lying on this point
is unfair and untrue.
B. Jesus sinned by destroying the fig tree.
Objection: According to Matthew 21.18-19 and Mark 11.12-14 Jesus cursed a fig tree
because it did not have fruit, which caused it to wither and die. ‘Now the next day,
when they had come out from Bethany, He was hungry. And seeing from afar a fig tree
having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came
to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. In response
Jesus said to it, “Let no one eat fruit from you ever again.”
Asher Norman says: ‘Mark 11.13 informs us it was not even the season for figs. This
act by Jesus directly violated the Torah’s prohibition against destroying fruit trees,
even those of an enemy in time of war (Deuteronomy 20.19).’
As a point of information the Tenach actually describes an incident where Elisha
(a mighty prophet of the LORD) went against this teaching. In 2 Kings 3.19 (after
the ‘hand of the LORD came upon him’) he gave a word by prophecy that the Israelite
army ‘shall cut down every good tree and stop up every spring of water’ in Moab.
Rashi comments on this verse: ‘Even though it is stated ‘You shall not destroy
its trees’ (Deuteronomy 20.19), here He permitted it for you for this is a contemptible
and insignificant nation before Him.’
Coming back to the event recorded in the Gospel, the timing of it was a few days
before Passover, therefore in late March or early April. At this time fig trees
would be in leaf and the buds of the figs would be visible, but not edible until
about six weeks later. Writing about this W. M. Christie, a Church of Scotland minister
in Palestine under the British Mandate wrote: ‘The facts connected with fig trees
are these. Toward the end of March the leaves begin to appear, and in about a week
the foliage coating is complete. Coincident with this and sometimes even before
there appears quite a crop of small knobs, not the real figs, but a kind of early
forerunner. They grow to the size of green almonds, in which condition they are
eaten by the peasants and other when hungry. When they come to their own indefinite
maturity they drop off.’
So when Mark says that the time for figs had not yet come he meant it was not time
for the figs to be edible, but if they appeared without any buds, there would be
no fruit, so the tree was going to be fruitless. Matthew, writing primarily of Jews,
does not give this information, but Mark writing for Gentiles does.
FF Bruce in ‘Hard Sayings of the Bible’ points out that this incident is in fact
an acted parable: ‘As recorded by Mark it is an acted parable with the same lesson
as the spoken parable of the fruitless fig tree in Luke 13.6-9. In that parable
a landowner came three years in succession expecting fruit from a fig tree on his
property and when year by year it proved to be fruitless, he told the man in charge
of his vineyard to cut it down because it was using up the ground to no good purpose.
In both the acted parable and the spoken parable it is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that the fig tree represents the city of Jerusalem, unresponsive to Jesus as he came
to it with the message of God and thereby incurring destruction.’
The fig tree is used as a symbol of Israel’s national life in Hosea 9.10 and Jeremiah
24. When Jesus spoke of the fig tree that would be ‘cut down’ if it did not bear
fruit in Luke 13.6-9, He was speaking about Israel not bearing the fruit of God’s
righteousness and rejecting Him as the Messiah. This would result in the coming
days of judgement with the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jewish people.
When Jesus cursed the fig tree and caused it to wither in Matthew 21.19 this unusual
miracle (actually the only ‘negative’ miracle which Jesus did – all His other miracles
were beneficial) had a spiritual meaning – that the national life of the Jewish people
in the land of Israel was about to wither. Elsewhere Luke records how Jesus wept
over the city’s blindness to its true well being and foretold its ruin ‘because you
did not know the time of your visitation.’ (Luke 19.41-44).
It is interesting that Jesus also spoke of the budding of the fig tree as a sign
of His Second Coming. The implication of this is that the dispersion of the Jewish
people will not be a permanent condition. The day will come when Jerusalem will
no longer be ‘trampled’ or ruled by the Gentiles and ‘the fig tree’ of Israel’s national
life will blossom again:
‘Then He spoke to them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When
they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near.
So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is
near. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all
things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means
The budding of the fig tree was to be a visual aid to people around the world of
a greater event which is to follow – the return of the Messiah. Jesus makes this
clear in Matthew 24.32-33:
‘Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender
and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all
these things, know that it is near—at the doors!’
The budding of the fig tree – the rebirth of Israel as a nation along with all the
other signs of the second coming which are taking place in our time – is a wake up
call to the world that Jesus is coming back.
Concerning both the event itself and its prophetic significance the question has
to be put back to the critics, what manner of man is able to perform such miraculous
acts and to give accurate prophecy of future events?
C. Jesus sinned in relation to the command to honour father and mother.
Objection: Luke 14.25-26: ‘Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and
said to them, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife
and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.”’
In Matthew 8.21-23 Jesus ordered a disciple to follow him without properly burying
his father: ‘Then another of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, let me first go and
bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own
Asher Norman says of Luke 14.26 ‘The Torah commands us to honour our father and mother
and therefore Jesus’ statement is morally problematic.’ Of Matthew 8 he says, ‘Ordering
his disciple not to bury his father violated the Ten Commandments and constituted
a major sin by Jesus under Jewish law.’
Hate your father and mother?
Let us look first at the passage in Luke. At first sight it does look harsh for
Jesus to speak of ‘hatred’ in terms of family relationships. In the context Jesus
is talking to large crowds who were following Him at that time, many attracted by
the miracles He was doing. What He is calling for in this verse is a radical commitment
to the Kingdom of God which would be a priority over family relationships. The implication
is that if those family members, be they parents, wife, children or brothers and
sisters, wish to come between the disciple making that commitment, then the kingdom
of God should come first.
This idea comes out more clearly in a similar passage in Matthew’s Gospel: “Do not
think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
For I have come to ‘seta man against his father, a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemieswill bethose
of hisownhousehold.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy
of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he
who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds
his life will lose it, and he who loses his life and he who loses his life for My
sake will find it.’ Matthew 10.34-39. Jesus quotes from the Hebrew prophet Micah
7.6 to make this point.
In practice it is very common that when a person comes to faith in Jesus (especially
from a Jewish, Muslim or Hindu background), he or she will receive opposition from
close family members. Often they will try to dissuade them or threaten them with
rejection (even death in some situations) if they carry on following Jesus. Jesus
said the issues of commitment to Him were eternal life or death ones and if a family
member sought to prevent allegiance to Jesus, then they should be ‘hated’ in the
sense of being rejected in preference to the importance of accepting the salvation
to be found in faith in Jesus.
It is interesting that in the Torah there are passages which show that allegiance
to the LORD and to the Torah was to take priority over family relationships. In
the Ten Commandments the LORD describes Himself as a ‘jealous God’ who would punish
sin as well as bless obedience. In this He means that there should be no rivals
in commitment to Him and His Torah. At the time of Israel’s sin with the Golden
Calf, Moses instructs the Levites: “Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘Let every
man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout
the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every
man his neighbour.’” So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And
about three thousand men of the people fell that day. Then Moses said, “Consecrate
yourselves today to the LORD, that He may bestow on you a blessing this day, for
every man has opposed his son and his brother.” Exodus 32.27-29.
Here we see Moses calling for Israelite relatives who sinned to be put to death (which
goes way beyond anything Jesus was saying). In Deuteronomy 13.6-11 there is also
a command to put to death your brother, son or daughter, wife or close family friend
who entices you to go after other gods. What would Asher Norman say if a passage
like this was found in the New Testament?
In relation to the word ‘hate’ we find in the Hebrew Bible that it is sometimes used
in the sense of preferring one over another. In Deuteronomy 21.15-17 reference to
a man who has two wives, ‘one loved and the other unloved’. Literally the word for
‘unloved’ here is ‘hated’, but in the context it can be seen to mean ‘unfavoured.’
In Malachi 1.1 we read ‘Yet Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated.’ Does this
mean that the LORD hates every single Edomite, or that He favours Jacob?
In reality the verse in Luke 14.26 does not mean that believers in Jesus should go
home and tell their parents how much they hate them any more than ‘hating’ one’s
own life means they should commit suicide. We see that in His teaching Jesus taught
us to love our neighbour, even to love our enemies (Matthew 5.43-48). Family members
are often against a person’s decision to follow Jesus and may treat the person who
does so with hostility because of their commitment. However the response on the part
of the believer should be one of love and a desire to keep a loving relationship
as far as is possible from his or her side. Jesus taught us to honour our parents
and rebuked the Pharisees who were using the device of ‘Corban’ (Mark 7.11, Matthew
15.4-9) to avoid providing for their parents’ needs. Even from the cross He showed
concern to provide for His mother’s need (John 19.25-27).
What Jesus says in Luke 14.26 can be summarised as meaning that commitment to the
Kingdom of God through following the Messiah should take priority over natural family
relationships. If parents or other family members seek to prevent you from following
Jesus, do not submit to them but put the kingdom first.
At the same time if we balance this against the rest of Jesus’ teaching we see that
He tells us to love and honour our parents. People around the world can testify
that, through following Jesus, family relationships, which had been broken through
previous sins, have been healed through repentance, forgiveness and commitment to
be good husbands, parents, sons and daughters.
D. Leave the dead to bury the dead.
In the context Jesus is speaking after large crowds were following Him due to the
miracles He was doing. He is calling for those who will not be mere spectators but
who will also go and proclaim the message of the kingdom of God. The section of
the Gospel begins with a man coming to Him and saying, ‘I will follow you wherever
you will go.’ (Matthew 8.18). His point in the verses that follow is to say that
being a disciple of Jesus was not going to be a ‘walk in the park’ and would require
commitment and willingness to suffer need.
He then tells a second man to ‘Follow Me’ and the man replies ‘Lord let me first
go and bury my Father.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Let the dead bury the dead, but you
go and proclaim the kingdom of God.’ First of all we have to say that what Jesus
says cannot be taken as a 100% literal statement. Obviously someone who is already
dead and buried cannot perform a funeral! So when He refers to the ‘dead’ He must
be talking about someone who is spiritually dead, with no response to God or His
message. Clarke’s commentary of the Bible explains this: ‘Leave the spiritually dead
to bury their natural dead. All the common offices of life may be performed by any
person; to preach the glad tidings of the kingdom of God is granted but to a few.’
Those who have come alive in the Kingdom of God should put as a priority the task
of making this message known.
But was Jesus really telling a man whose father had just died that he had no time
to attend his burial? Jewish burial customs today are that the deceased should be
buried within 24 hours and it appears that this was also the practice in Jesus' time.
Bodies were washed, wrapped, and scented for their initial entombment on the day
of death. We read about this in the cases of Lazarus (John 11.44) and Jesus Himself
(Matthew 27.59). Relating to the incident in Matthew 8, it would be reasonable to
assume that the on the day of his father’s death the man would be about the business
of burying his father not talking to Jesus. In any case the delay of a few hours
to complete the job would hardly be that significant.
Research has shown that in Jesus’ day there was a practice called ossilegium or ‘secondary
burial’ which took place a year later, after the decay of the body was complete,
the bones of the deceased were gathered and placed in an ossuary. If this secondary
burial is in view, Jesus is telling the disciple that he cannot wait for the remainder
of a year to pass, even though the secondary burial of one's parents was an important
responsibility in that culture. The kingdom of God was at hand, and following the
Messiah was the most urgent priority. Another possibility put forward by John Nolland
in his commentary on Matthew’s Gospel is that this disciple was seeking ‘permission
to stay behind until his aging parent (presently still in good health?) dies.’ Jesus
was telling him that the kingdom of God should have priority.
Asher Norman lists a number of statements by Jesus which he says are ‘morally problematic.’
He says these statements have ‘supported European Christian anti-Semitism and violence
against Jews and others.’ We strongly condemn anti-Semitism and violence against
Jewish people and deeply deplore the fact that such actions have been taken in the
name of Jesus (but in opposition to what He really taught). The texts used by Asher
Norman in this section of his book are either taken out of context or misapplied.
A. Kill your enemies?
The first one is Luke 19.27, a verse which concludes the parable of the talents (minas):
‘But bring those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them and slay
them before me.’ Asher Norman says that this parable was directed against the Jewish
people who rejected Jesus as king. ‘Through their rebellious refusal to accept the
nobleman’s kingship, the Jews were considered as enemies. Jesus, the king in the
parable, decreed a time of judgement on the unfaithful and disobedient. Luke’s Jesus
demanded that those who rejected his rule be killed in his presence.’
He couples this verse with John 15.6: ‘If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast
out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire,
and they are burned.’ He says, ‘This statement reinforces the previous statement
and demonstrates that Jesus treated those Jews who did not wish to follow him as
his enemy and threatened violence against them. This terrible statement was later
used by the Catholic Church to justify their practice of burning non-believers at
As a point of information the Inquisition of the Catholic Church and burning at the
stake was directed against those it considered heretics. Jews were victims of the
cruelty of the Catholic Church, but so were believing Christians who protested against
the false religious Roman Catholic system. They included men like Tyndale who translated
the scriptures into languages people could understand. The source of hatred and
persecution by this church against Jews and Protestants was not the words of Jesus
recorded in the Gospels. It was the fruit of a rejection of his teaching and a submission
to an apostate religious structure which disgraced Christianity. I consider my spiritual
ancestors to be the victims of these atrocities, who were true believers in Jesus,
not the perpetrators of them.
In reference to the two passages Asher Norman refers to here, neither should in any
way be interpreted to mean that Jesus taught his followers to put to death those
who reject Him. Neither passage mentions Jews specifically either. The verse in
Luke is in the context of a parable which deals with the issue of using the gifts
which God gives in order to bring in the Kingdom of God. The one who invests his
gift is commended and rewarded, the one, who neglects it, is condemned and suffers
loss. The parable also deals with the issue of judgement. The final verse about the
king slaying those who reject his authority speaks of the final judgement of those
who are not admitted to the Kingdom of God.
The issue of Jesus having the authority to judge the world is at the heart of the
other verses which Asher Norman finds objectionable in this section. He quotes John
3.36: ‘He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe
the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.’ He compares this
with the Talmud which says, ‘The righteous of all nations have a share in the World
to Come’ and says, ‘The theology of Judaism not Christianity represents universal
So did Jesus have authority to judge the world and is salvation to be found through
Him alone or is there a universal salvation through coming to God by whatever religion
you choose or are born into?
The answer to this depends on how you answer the questions which we have looked at
elsewhere on this website.
‘Is Jesus the Messiah?’
‘Did He come from God to bring salvation to the Jewish people and the whole human
race through His death as a sacrifice for our sins and resurrection from the dead?’
‘Will He judge the world in righteousness at the final judgement and have authority
to cast unbelievers into hell and bring believers into heaven?’
From the teaching of the New Testament the answer to all these questions is ‘Yes.’
Jesus claims authority to do this in John 5.22-29. “For as the Father raises the
dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the
Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should
honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does
not honour the Father who sent Him. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My
word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into
judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the
hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God;
and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted
the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment
also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming
in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have
done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection
From the point of view of rabbinic Judaism and Asher Norman in his book the answer
to the questions above and the coming judgement is ‘No’ and so Jesus has no right
to make these statements of himself. Nevertheless whatever answer is given to the
question of the final judgement, Jesus taught his disciples to love their enemies
and not to use force to spread His message.
B. Two swords?
On this subject Asher Norman claims that ‘Clearly Jesus desired a physical kingdom
because if he only claimed a ‘heavenly’ kingdom his followers would have no reason
to sell their clothes to buy swords. To back up this statement he quotes from Luke
22.36: ‘And he who has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one.’
He links this to Matthew 10.34 ‘Think not that I have come to send peace to the world.
I come not to send peace but the sword.’ His analysis says: ‘This statement was
not allegorical. At Jesus’ arrest one of his disciples cut off the high priest’s
servant’s ear with a sword. Therefore Jesus’ instructions were followed by at least
one of his disciples who actually carried and then used a sword. (Matthew 26.51).
The implication here is that Jesus was engaged in some kind of political struggle
which would use violence to achieve its ends. Jewish writer, Hyam Maccoby, has
put forward this view in his book, ‘Revolution in Judea.’ In this he claims that
Jesus was organising a protest movement against Roman tyranny and he was crucified
for sedition against Rome. I once attended a lecture Mr Maccoby gave on this subject
in which he quoted Luke 22.36 to illustrate his view that Jesus was really raising
an army to fight against the Romans. In the question time I pointed out that in
the response to Jesus words about the swords, the disciples say “Lord, look, here
are two swords.” Then Jesus said to them, “It is enough.”’ Luke 22.38. I asked
him how he imagined Jesus was going to get his disciples to take on the Roman army
with two swords.
If ‘two swords’ were ‘enough’ then clearly the aim was not a battle with the Roman
legions. The swords were simply for self-defence at this crisis moment when Jesus
was going to be arrested and the disciples scattered. Significantly Asher Norman
makes no mention either of the two swords being ‘enough’ in his book.
Asher Norman is also being somewhat dishonest in not completing the whole account
of what happened in the incident in Matthew 26 when one of the disciples cut off
the ear of the servant of the high priest.
Firstly Jesus does not commend this act but rebukes the disciple: ‘And suddenly,
one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck
the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. But Jesus said to him, “Put
your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.’ Matthew
26.51-52. In saying this Jesus made it clear that His cause would not be served
by use of the ‘sword’. Crusades, Inquisition and the use of force in any way to spread
the faith were forbidden by the teaching of Jesus. That people who called themselves
Christians did such things in the name of Jesus is a testimony to their lack of true
faith in Him, not their zeal for Him.
Secondly Luke’s Gospel tells us that Jesus healed the man: ‘And one of them struck
the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and
said, “Permit even this.” And He touched his ear and healed him.’ Luke 22.50-51.
So far from advocating violence and the use of force, the whole teaching of this
incident shows Jesus’ non violent response and his compassion for one of the people
arresting him, bringing yet another healing miracle to pass even at such a crisis
moment as this.
C. Jesus called Gentiles dogs?
Objection: ‘Matthew and Mark report that a Gentile woman came to Jesus to heal
her daughter. Jesus told her, ‘I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel … let the children be satisfied first. It is not good to take the children’s
bread and throw it to the dogs.’ (Matthew 15.22). Asher Norman compares Jesus statement
‘Gentiles are dogs’ to the ‘writings in the Talmud by the contemporaneous Pharisees
(rabbis) whom Jesus often maligned: ‘We are obliged to feed the Gentile poor in exactly
the same manner as we feed the Jewish poor.’ ‘Do not despise any man.’ ‘Even a Gentile
who studies Torah is equal to the High Priest.’ Jesus did not seem to measure up
to the Pharisees of the Talmud in their understanding of universal kindness.
Actually this is not the whole story. Although there are passages in the Talmud
which emphasise the positive value placed on all human beings, there are also a number
which say the opposite. Rashi comments on Exodus 22.31 ‘You are to be my holy people.
So do not eat the meat of an animal torn by wild beasts; throw it to the dogs.’
According to Rashi this probably refers to Gentiles: ‘you shall throw it to the
dogs. He (referring to a Gentile) is also similar to a dog, or perhaps a dog is
meant literally?’ Lachs ‘Rabbinic commentary on the New Testament’ (p 249, n. 8)
makes reference to b.A.Z.54b, ‘where R. Joshua compares the righteous to the guests
invited to the king’s table, and the wicked heathen to the dogs who obtain the crumbs
that fall from there.’
According to some traditional Jewish sources it is permitted to violate the Sabbath
to save the life of a Jew, but not the life of a Gentile. R. Johanan in the Talmud
states, ‘A heathen who studies Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded
us a law for an inheritance (Deuteronomy 33.4); it is our inheritance, not theirs’
(b. Sanh 59a).
Today Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of the Shas Party, has said, “Non-Jews
were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world-only to
serve the People of Israel,” Yosef said in his weekly Saturday night sermon which
was devoted to laws regarding actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on the Sabbath.
Yosef also reportedly said that the lives of non-Jews in Israel are preserved by
God in order to prevent losses to Jews. Yosef, widely considered a prominent Torah
sage and authority on the interpretation of Talmud, a basic Jewish scripture, held
a comparison between animals of burden and non-Jews. “In Israel, death has no dominion over
them… With gentiles, it will be like any person -They need to die, but God will
give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their
money. This is his servant…That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this
This one verse in Luke is certainly not the whole story of Jesus’ attitudes to Gentiles
or dealings with them. We find a number of incidents in the Gospels showing an inclusive
view towards non Jews:
Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus contains two Gentile women, Rahab a Canaanite woman
and Ruth a Moabitess. (Matthew 1.5).
In Matthew 8.5-13 Jesus commended a Roman centurion for his faith and healed his
In John 4 Jesus reached out to a Samaritan woman and stayed in Samaria to minister
to the people there.
In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.29-37) Jesus commended the Samaritan
as an example of the one who fulfilled the command ‘You shall love your neighbour
When Jesus healed ten lepers (Luke 10.29-37) he notes that only one of the men returned
to give him thanks – a Samaritan, whom he then commends.
In the context of both Matthew 15 and Mark 7 we find that this account follows the
incident in which Jesus has a debate with some Pharisees and teachers of the law
who had come down from Jerusalem to Gennesaret (Galilee) where Jesus had been performing
miracles (Matthew 14.34-36), healing all who were diseased. Instead of giving thanks
for these miracles the Pharisees found fault with Jesus’ disciples saying ‘Why do
Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their
hands when they eat bread.”
This triggered a rebuke from Jesus for their observance of man-made traditions which
got in the way of obedience to God’s word. He then explained to them that what really
defiles is what comes out of a man, not what goes into a man. ‘Do you not yet understand
that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those
things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts,
false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with
unwashed hands does not defile a man.’ Matthew 15.16-20.
Both Matthew and Mark record that after this incident Jesus left the region of Galilee
to go to the Gentile region of Tyre and Sidon (today in southern Lebanon). The result
of this long journey is the healing of this Gentile woman’s daughter. This woman
acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah, calling Him ‘Son of David’, in contrast to the
Pharisees who can only find fault despite seeing miraculous signs taking place. She
pleads to Him for mercy since her daughter was ‘suffering terribly from demon possession.’
Firstly Jesus does not answer her, testing her faith. The disciples urge him to
send her away, to which Jesus says: ‘But He answered and said, “I was not sent except
to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15.24.
This was the state of things at this point in Jesus’ ministry. Following His resurrection
He instructed His disciples to go ‘into all the world’ and bring the message of repentance
and forgiveness of sins to be preached in His name to all nations (Luke 24.47)’.
But at this point in the Gospel account, He had come as the Messiah of Israel to
minister to the Jewish people.
Despite this apparent discouragement from Jesus, the woman persists: ‘Then she came
and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”
At this point Jesus speaks the apparently offensive words: ‘But He answered and
said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”
And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from
their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your
faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very
hour.’ Matthew 8.25-8.
Jesus commends the woman for her ‘great faith’, a phrase only used elsewhere in Matthew
in chapter 8.10 where He says to the Roman centurion, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, I
have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!’ This leads into his comments
about a great ingathering of Gentiles while many Jews would not make it into the
kingdom (Matthew 8.11-12).
Michael Brown (‘Answering Jewish objections to Jesus’ Volume 4, page 176) says that
Jesus was giving an object lesson to the disciples in what is clean and what is unclean.
‘Jesus was pointing to the fact that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered
‘unclean’ if they put their trust in Him. As articulated later by Paul, ‘For the
Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” (Isaiah 28.16)
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is
rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be
saved.” (Joel 2.32). So then in terms of salvation, Jesus the Messiah broke down
the wall of separation so that in this respect, ‘there is no difference between Jew
Michael Brown points out that
1. Jesus put this woman through a test to draw out – and thereby demonstrate her
great faith, granting her request and, in the process, continuing to display his
power to heal as the Messianic Son of David.
2. He went many miles out of his way to give a practical illustration about ‘clean’
3. Ultimately he went many miles out of his way to heal a needy woman’s daughter.
4. He used the occasion to highlight, ‘great faith’ existing outside the people (or
borders) of Israel.
So what about his words about taking the bread and giving it to the ‘dogs’? The
word used is ‘kunarion’ which can refer to household dogs rather than wild dogs which
to a certain extent lessens its harshness. The woman in fact grasped the point
Jesus was making in the reference to ‘dogs’ – that He was sent to the house of Israel
at that time. But while Israel came first, and were to receive the promises of God
in the Messiah, the Gentiles could still get the ‘leftovers’. These words were
spoken by Jesus for a specific time and purpose and should not be an occasion for
stumbling – either to Jews or Gentiles. He did not say, ‘You lousy Gentile dog,
I’ll never help you.’ He did what no ordinary man could do – healed her daughter
and blessed both mother and daughter with new life and deliverance. No doubt their
response to this mercy was to thank God and bless the name of Yeshua, Jesus.