Bible Difficulties (75 page)

The same idea is brought out very clearly by Christ's "Golden Rule" in Matthew 7:12:

"Therefore all things that you wish men to do to you, do even so to them." We are to treat them with as much consideration and love as we should like to have them do to us. This again is the very antithesis of self-love.

When the early Christians of the Jerusalem church sold their property and gave the proceeds to be distributed among all the church members as each might have need, this was a distribution of love to all alike; it was anything but a manifestation of self-love.

Self-love would have dictated a retaining of one's wealth for personal advantage and enjoyment. Fallen mankind already knows this kind of self-love and needs no exhortation or encouragement by professional counselors--Christian or otherwise--to further self-love.

What really concerns the Christian counselor is that tendency towards low self-esteem or outright self-rejection that he often encounters in people who are emotionally disturbed. Often they have disappointed themselves in a vain attempt to achieve their own personal goals; and they condemn themselves for their failure, out of a feeling of wounded pride. Or else they have been so rejected and put down by others they they end up despising themselves. The psychologist seeks to counteract this self-contempt or self-rejection by a totally different concept of self--and so he should. But the remedy is not found in resurrecting the same vice that may have contributed to their downfall in the first place. Self-love is not the answer; rather, it is Christ-love. "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died [i.e., all believers united to Him by faith died with Him as He suffered for them on the cross]; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves [as all self-lovers do], but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf" (2 Cor. 5:14-15, NASB).

The fact that the Son of God loved me enough to die for me confers on me a standing of privilege and glory far higher than anything a self-lover might seek to gain for himself.

`Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:3-4, NASB). If God has loved us, delivered us, showered such blessing on us, and guaranteed a place for us in the glory of heaven above--all because of His free grace and not because of any merit or goodness in us--how can we condemn, reject, or despise ourselves? "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" asks Romans 8:33. If no one else in heaven, earth, or hell can bring any charge against those justified by the blood of Jesus, no more can we despise or abhor 341

ourselves. That amounts to a rejection of God's own judgment of love toward us (who by faith are
in
His beloved Son, Jesus).

Self-contempt and self-hate are completely excluded by the mighty love of God, which He has showered on us. He has entrusted us with a high and holy calling; He has summoned us to be ambassadors of the court of heaven, commissioned to preach Christ and reconciliation to God through His atoning death (2 Cor. 5:19-20). He has consecrated our bodies to be temples of His Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). What higher dignity, what greater glory is possible for any man? I must daily, hourly, present my body as a living sacrifice to Him on the altar of devotion; I must constantly draw on Him for His enablement to fulfill my stewardship in a worthy and appropriate manner. But I will never, never despise myself or reject myself if I truly believe what God has said about me in His words. This kind of self-assurance and self-esteem is derived completely from Jesus by faith and lifts me immeasurably above the level of "self-love." I am lost in the love of Christ, and in Him I find myself again!

How could Zechariah son Berechiah be the last of the martyrs? And wasn't he really
the son of Jehoiada?

In Matthew 23:34-35, Jesus says to the scribes and Pharisees who are plotting His death,

"Therefore behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify,...that upon you may fall 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 temple and the altar." It is generally supposed that Jesus was actually referring to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, who was stoned to death in the court of the temple at the order of King Joash, because Zechariah had the temerity to rebuke the government and the citizenry for their cultivation of idolatry. This is recorded in 2

Chronicles 24:20-22. But once this apparent error concerning the name of the martyr's father has been explained away as a textual error, then it is observed that Zechariah ben Jehoiada, who died 800 B.C., was by no means the last of the Old Testament martyrs; hence he makes a poor balance to Abel, who certainly was the first.

The obvious solution is to start all over again and assume that Matthew 23:25 correctly reports the words of Jesus, and that He knew what He was talking about. If so, then we discover that the Zechariah He was referring to was indeed the son of Berachiah (not Jehoiada), and that he was indeed the last of the Old Testament martyrs mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, Christ is recalling to His audience the circumstances of the death of the
prophet
Zechariah, son Berechiah (Zech. 1:1), whose ministry began around 520 and ended a bit later than 480 B.C. The Old Testament contains no record of events during the first few decades of the fifth century B.C. until about 457, the date of Ezra's return to Jerusalem. But it may very well have been that sometime between 580

and 570 Zechariah the prophet was martyred by a mob in much the same way Zechariah the son Jehoiada was some three centuries earlier. Since Jesus referred to Zechariah as the
last
of the Old Testament martyrs, there can be no legitimate doubt that it was the eleventh of the twelve minor prophets He had in mind. Therefore we can only conclude 342

that the later Zechariah died in much the same way the earlier one did, as a victim of popular resentment against his rebuke of their sins.

Since there are about twenty-seven different individuals mentioned in the Old Testament bearing the name Zechariah, it is not surprising if two of them happened to suffer a similar fate. In other words, if we take Matthew 23:35 just as it stands, it makes perfect sense in its context; and it offers no contradiction to any known and established facts history. In the absence of any other information as to how the prophet Zechariah died, we may as well conclude that Jesus has given us a true account of it and add to the roster of the noble martyrs of biblical times.

Did Jesus mean in Matthew 24:34 that all the signs of His second coming were really
fulfilled before His generation passed away?

Matthew 24:34 reports our Lord as saying, "Truly I say to you, this generation [
genea
]

will not pass away until all these things take place" (NASB). What things? The rise of false teachers and prophets, the persecution and martyrdom of believers, and all the horrors of the Great Tribulation will occur (vv. 9-22). Also, there will be false Christs, deceitful miracles, and strange phenomena in the heavens (vv. 23-29). Then at last the

"sign of the Son of Man" (v.30) will appear in the heavens; and all the world will witness His return to earth with power and great glory, when he sends forth His angels to gather together all the "elect" from every part of the earth.

Obviously these apocalyptic scenes and earth-shaking events did not take place within the generation of those who heard Christ's Olivet discourse. Therefore Jesus could not have been referring to His immediate audience when He made His prediction concerning

"this
genea
." What did He mean by this prophecy?

There are two possible explanations. One is that
genea
("generation") was used as a synonym of
genos
("race," "stock," "nation," "people"). This would then amount to a prediction that the Jewish race would not pass out of existence before the Second Advent.

Whatever other races would die out before that event--and most of the races contemporaneous with Jesus of Nazareth have in fact died out already--the Jewish race, however persecuted and given from one country to another, would survive until our Lord's return. No other nation has ever managed to live through all the dispersions and persecutions and uprooted conditions to which the Jews have been subjected. Yet they live on until this day and have reestablished their independence in the State of Israel.

Although this meaning for
genea
is not common, it is found as early as Homer and Herodotus and as late as Plutarch (cf. H.G. Liddell and R. Scott,
A Greek-English
Lexicon
, 9th ed., [Oxford: Claredon, 1940], p. 342).

The other possibility is that
genea
does indeed mean "generation" in the usual sense of the word, but refers to the generation of observers who witness the beginning of the signs and persecutions with which the Tribulation will begin. Many of these will live to see the Lord Jesus come back to earth, as Conqueror and Judge, with great power and glory. This interpretation has the merit of preserving the more common and usual meaning of the 343

word. But it suffers from the disadvantage of predicting what would normally be expected to happen anyway. Whether the Tribulation will last for seven years or for a mere three and a half years, it would not be so unusual for most people to survive that long. Seven years is not a very long time to live through, even in the face of bloody persecution.

Perhaps it should be added that if the Olivet Discourse was originally delivered in Aramaic (as it probably was), then we cannot be certain that the meaning of this prediction hinged entirely on the Greek word used to translate it.
Genea
and
genos
are, after all, closely related words from the same root. The Aramaic term that Jesus Himself probably used (the Syriac Peshitta uses
sharbeta'
here, which can mean either

"generation" or "race") is susceptible to either interpretation, and thus could mean the Jewish "race rather than the circle of Christ's own contemporaries.

How can the various accounts of Peter's denial of Christ be reconciled?

Concerning Peter's denial, Christ is quoted in Matthew 26:34 as stating, "Truly I tell you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will three times deny Me." Mark 14:30

quotes Jesus a little more fully: "And Jesus says to him, "`Truly I tell you that today, this very night, before the rooster crows twice you will three times deny Me.'" (Luke 22:34

substantially follows Matthew's wording, though in a somewhat briefer version.) Is this a real discrepancy, as some critics allege? Hardly, since we may be very sure that if the rooster crows twice, he has at least crowed once.

Apparently Jesus did specify that the cock would crow a second time by the time the third denial had been expressed by Peter. The important part of the prediction, however, lay not in the number of times the rooster would sound out but in the number of times Peter would basely deny to his interrogators that he belonged to Jesus--or even that he was acquainted with Him. To add or include additional information does not amount to a contradiction of the testimony of a witness who has given a somewhat briefer account.

Such variation is observed in the lecture notes taken by students in a classroom: some include more details than others. But that does not mean they are not all equally valid witnesses to what their instructor said.

The same observation applied to the account of the triple denial itself. Each synoptist includes some items of information not included by the others, and John furnishes many details not found in the Synoptics at all. But it is perfectly clear that none of the statements are actually contradictory. When they are lined up in parallel columns, their rich wealth of information gives us a fuller account than could be gathered from any single one of them. Such a comparison yields the following composite narrative of Peter's miserable experience during Christ's trial before Caiaphas.

Peter was admitted to the outer court of the high priest after John had spoken to the doorkeeper (
thyroros
is probably masculine here) who guarded the approach from the street (John 18:15-16). After Peter entered, he sat down by a fire to warm himself on that chilly night (Luke 22:56). But a girl who served as a doorkeeper on the inner side of the 344

gate began looking intently at him and finally blurted out, "You too were with Jesus, the Galilean from Nazareth!" (Mark 14:67) (Luke 22:56 reads "You too were with him!").

Then she asked him point blank, "Aren't you one of His disciples ?" (John 18:17). To this Peter uttered his first denial, "I am not!" He added, "I don't know or understand what you are talking about" (Matt. 26:70; Mark 14:68). Then he
stoutly affirmed
, "I don't know Him, woman!" (Luke 22:57).

After this brush with danger, Peter wandered off to the portico of the building itself; but even there he attracted some unwelcome attention. Another servant girl, who may well have been tipped off by the female gatekeeper, remarked to one of the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus the Nazarene" (Matt. 26:71). "He certainly was one of them," she insisted (Mark 14:69).

At this point, one of the men in the group leveled an accusing finger at Peter and declared, "You are one of them!" (Luke 22:58). Peter had by this time joined some men standing around a charcoal fire (apparently not the same fire he had stopped by in the outer court); they also picked up the accusation: "You too were with Jesus the Galilean!"

(Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:70). They followed this charge with a forthright question: "Are you one of His disciples?" (John 18:25). With mounting intensity Peter replied, "Man, I am not!" (Luke 22:58). "I neither know nor understand what you are talking about!"

(Matt. 26:72).

Somewhat later, perhaps as long as an hour after the second denial (Luke 22:59), a relative of the servant Peter had wounded at Gethsemane spotted him and shouted out,