Bible Difficulties (74 page)

It is only after we compare the testimony of all three witnesses that we obtain a fuller understanding of the whole episode. From Luke 18:35 we learn that Bartimaeus first learned of Jesus' visit to Jericho as He and his followers were entering the town. Then, as the crowd was passing by, he tried to gain Christ's attention by calling out directly to Him from where he was sitting. Yet it would seem that he was not at first successful; for it was 336

not until Jesus had entered the town, had His contact with Zacchaeus, taught the people the parable of the pounds (or: minas), and was on the point of leaving the city that Bartimaeus finally managed to engage Christ's attention. Possibly this was because the crowd was quieter on Jesus' departure than it had been at His arrival. At any rate, it was not until that point that Jesus stopped walking and gave orders for Bartimaeus to be brought to Him.

Mark 10:46-47 makes this clear: "And they come to Jericho. And as He was going out from Jericho...Bartimaeus...was sitting by the road. And hearing that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, `Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!'" We cannot be certain whether vv. 47-48 refer to his first (and unsuccessful) appeal, or whether it was his subsequent outcry on Jesus' departure. From Matthew 20:30 we get the clear information that it was the latter. For Matthew 20:29 states quite explicitly that this dialogue with Jesus took place as the Lord was emerging from the city. Matthew also informs us that Bartimaeus had picked up a blind colleague in the meantime. It seems that Bartimaeus spoke to him of his high hopes of getting through to Jesus when He could depart from the city, by the same gate He had entered. It may not have been a close friend of his, since Bartimaeus seems to have called out on his own behalf, in the first instance at least (Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39).

Bartimaeus and his unnamed companion moved forward at more or less the same time where Jesus was standing. As they made their way to the Savior, they jointly petitioned Him (Matt. 20:33). Yet for some reason it was Bartimaeus who showed the greater energy in his importunity to Christ, and it was therefore to him that Jesus addressed His remarks and questions. He next healed the other man as well, and apparently touched their sightless eyes with His hand, thus restoring their sight to them (Matt. 20:34). The result was that both men joined Jesus' following and rejoiced as they witnessed to everyone they saw concerning what the Lord had done.

The three accounts supplement one another very helpfully in such a way as to bring out the facts that (1) Bartimaeus was the prime mover and the undiscourageable man of faith in this approach of Jesus for healing, while his companion was a less aggressive personality who was content to chime in with whatever Bartimaeus said; (2) Bartimaeus'

persistence was such that he would not take no for an answer, no matter how sternly the public ordered him to be silent. He even kept waiting for a second opportunity to contact Jesus, no matter how long it took for our Lord to accomplish His purposes in Jericho.

Therefore he was most intently waiting for Jesus as He finally emerged once more through the same city gate.

Matthew was concerned to mention all who were involved in this episode (just as he alone of the Synoptists recorded the fact that it was really two maniacs that met Jesus on the territory of Gadara [Matt. 8:28], whereas both Mark and Luke speak only of one demoniac possessed by the Legion demons). Matthew is content to record that actual scene of healing, whereas Luke gives particular attention to the entire proceedings, from the moment that Bartimaeus first heard about Jesus' arrival--a feature only cursorily suggested by Mark 10:46--because he is interested in the beggar's persistence in request 337

before the cure was actually performed on him. As for the second blind beggar, neither Mark nor Luke find him significant enough to mention; presumably he was the more colorless personality of the two.

How many donkeys were involved in the Palm Sunday entrance into Jerusalem?

One or two?

Matthew 21:2 mentions two animals involved in Christ's entrance into Jerusalem: the mother donkey and her foal. In the parallel accounts in Mark 11:2 and Luke 19:30 only the male foal is referred to; nothing is said about the mother. But this does not constitute a contradiction, because all three gospels agree that Jesus rode on a young donkey foal (
polos
) that had not been ridden before. Only the mother donkey is at issue. Rather than being guilty of embellishing the narrative, however, Matthew was simply pointing out (21:5) that the prediction in Zechariah 9:9 was fulfilled to the letter by this symbolic action of Christ. Zechariah 9:9 closes with the words "humble, and mounted on a donkey

[
hamor
], even on a foal [
àyir
], the son of a she-ass [
à-tono-t
]." Matthew goes on to record that the mother donkey went on ahead of Jesus as He rode on her young foal (v.7).

What was the point of involving the she-ass in this transaction? A moment's reflection will bring out the fact that if the foal had never yet been ridden (and that was an important factor for the sake of the symbolism), then he probably was still dependent on his mother psychologically or sentimentally, even though he may have been completely weaned by this time. It simply made it an easier operation if the mother donkey were led along down the road towards the city gate; then the foal would naturally follow her, even though he had never before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to follow a roadway.

The Zechariah passage does not actually specify that the parent donkey would figure in the triumphal entrance; it is simply describes the foal as "the son of a she-ass" by way of poetic parallelism. But Matthew contributes the eyewitness observation (and quite possibly neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitness as Matthew was) that the mother actually preceded Jesus in that procession that took Jesus into the Holy City. Here again, then there is no real contradiction between the synoptic accounts but only added detail on the part of Matthew as one who viewed the event while it was happening.

Did Christ curse the barren fig tree before or after He expelled the moneychangers
from the temple?

In Matthew 21:12-17 we are told that after Christ entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, He went straight to the temple and proceeded to cast out those selling animals for sacrifice within the court and those converting the monetary gifts of worshipers into currency acceptable for the temple treasury. Luke 19:45-46 contains a much-shortened version of the same account and states that the cleansing took place after Jesus had entered the temple. But in Mark 11:11-19 it is clearly stated that Jesus did not expel the tradesmen from the temple until Monday, after He had cursed the barren fig tree (vv. 12-14). Matthew does not speak of the fig tree until after he has described the cleansing of 338

the temple (21:18-19). Luke does not refer to the fig tree incident at all; so we have to deal only with Matthew and Mark in regard to this problem of sequence. How are we to reconcile these two accounts? Quite obviously Jesus would not have cleansed the temple court on two successive afternoons, using precisely the same terms: "My house shall be called a house of prayer."

As we study the narrative techniques of Matthew in general, we find that he sometimes arranges his material in topical order rather than in the strictly chronological order that is more often characteristic of Mark and Luke. Matthew's collection of teachings contained in the three chapters (5-7) of the Sermon on the Mount may perhaps have been delivered all at one time, as the multitude sat on the hillside below Him on the traditional site of the Mount of the Beatitudes, by the north shore of the Sea of Galilee. The fact that portions of the Sermon-on-the-Mount teachings are found sometimes in other settings, such as in the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6:20-49 and elsewhere, may mean no more than that Jesus often spoke on these same themes wherever He went during His three-year ministry in Palestine and its adjacent regions. But Matthew's tendency to group his material in themes according to a logical sequence is quite clearly exhibited in the series of eight parables of the kingdom of heaven that make up chapter 13. Once a theme has been broached, Matthew prefers to carry it through to its completion, as a general rule.

Matthew and Mark agree that as soon as Christ entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, He made His way straight to the temple (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:11). They also agree that He actually entered the temple on that Sunday. Mark contributes that it was in the late afternoon that this took place, and that after He entered He took a careful look around at what was going on. Doubtless He was deeply disturbed by the loud, irreverent commercialism, just as He had been three years before, when He had chased the merchants out at the end of His lashing whip (John 2:13-17). On that occasion He had denounced them for making God's house a place of merchandise (rather than quoting Isa.

56:7, as He did in this Holy Week episode).

Mark then tells us that Jesus did nothing publicly to express His indignation on that late Sunday afternoon. On the contrary, Jesus returned to Bethany--presumably to the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha--and spent the night there. We may be sure that He spent part of that night in prayer, seeking from the Father guidance as to what He should do on the next day. It may well be that Jesus saw in the barren fig tree He encountered on His way back to Jerusalem that Monday morning of Holy Week a vivid reminder of the unfruitfulness of Israel as a nation; and for that reason He made it a special object lesson for His disciples.

The fig tree had produced its foliage without having put forth its fruit--which in that climate normally precedes the full leafage itself. (Mark 11:13 observes that it was not the regular season for the production of figs, but apparently this particular tree had gone into full foliage without developing any figs at all.) Jesus also used the rapid withering of the fig tree (apparently before Monday was over) to teach the disciples that the prayer of faith (and His curse had been in the nature of a prayer for judgment on that tree) could 339

accomplish such marvels as these, and even greater (such as the the moving of mountains into the sea; cf. Matt. 21:20-22; Mark 11:20-25).

Mark then goes on to relate, following his principle of chronological sequence, that Christ went back to Jerusalem and into the temple; there He expelled the noisy, venal tradesmen and moneychangers from the hallowed court, employing the language referred above: "`My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations,' says the Lord, `but you have made it into a house of thieves'" (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46).

Matthew, however, felt it suited his topical approach more effectively to include the Monday afternoon action with the Sunday afternoon initial observation, whereas Mark preferred to follow strict chronological sequence. (Luke says nothing about this matter either way, since he does not include the fig tree episode at all.)
Does Matthew 22:39 teach a godly love of self?

Matthew 22:39 contains Christ's quotation of Leviticus 19:18: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (NASB). Some have inferred from this that Jesus taught a godly love of self, for one cannot very well love his neighbor unless he also loves himself.

There may be a measure of truth in this, but it involves a somewhat different understanding of the word "love" than what is normally used. Certainly the second great commandment, involves a proper regard, acceptance, and respect for oneself; but it seems to be quite misleading--if not altogether dangerous--to speak of the Bible as teaching self-love.

Interestingly enough, there is only one passage in Scripture that speaks of self-love explicitly, and that is 2 Timothy 3:1-3: "But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be
lovers of self
[
philautoi
], lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving" (NASB). It is interesting to see the categories of character weakness and sinful perversion in which this
philautoi
appears. And it should be carefully noted that "lovers of self" are grouped with the "unloving" (
astorgoi
)--lacking the natural affection toward one's own flesh and blood), "haters of good," and "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God." There can be no question but what the term "self-lovers" is presented here as a serious character weakness, a trait of sin. For this reason there is little justification for a Christian minister or a Christian counselor to speak with approval of "self-love." Are we ever justified in praising what Scripture condemns? Hardly. Rather, because of the self-deceptiveness of the human heart (Jer. 17:9), we would do well to allow ourselves to be taught by Scripture in this matter, rather than falling into a fallacy that comes from a sophistic juggling of terms.

The first appeal to self-love to be found in the Bible occurs in Genesis 3:4-5, where the satanic serpent poses as the friend and helpful counselor of man: "You surely shall not die [despite what God may have said to you]! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God [or `gods'], knowing good and evil"

(NASB). So saying, he stirred up a strong realization of self love on Eve's part, and she felt moved to partake of the forbidden fruit. Satan has been appealing to self-love in 340

fallen man ever since. The influence of self-love and self-will has been to lead away from the will of God into a life of shameful bondage to evil. "Self-love" is the name of the name of the disease of our soul; it cannot possibly be the correct label for its cure!

How, then, are we to understand Matthew 22:39: "Love your neighbor as yourself"? We should observe that it commands the very opposite of self-love, for self-love dictates the love of self
in preference
to others. This second commandment bids us to do the very contrary of this: we are to put the rights and needs of others in the very same level as our own. Hence this is a negation and a rejection of self-love (in the sense of self-preference).