The Da Vinci Code: FACT?

I am not worried that Dan Brown's The Da Vince Code harms anyone's faith. If a so-so novel brimming with falsehoods can destroy one's faith, then one's faith was not very strong to begin with.

I am, however, concerned about one thing, and it stems from Brown's statement of "fact" at the beginning of The Da Vinci Code. His novel begins with a page entitled FACT, and this quote: 

"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Dan Brown 

Brown's quote on his FACT page is displayed prominently at the beginning of the book. Historians and biblical scholars alike have debunked this claim over and over since the book's publication, they have done so in dozens of articles and books (I recommend Ben Witherington's book, The Gospel Code.), yet the public seems to have, by and large, bought this fabrication to this day.

Whenever this comes up in conversation, someone often says to me, "Yeah, Bert, but it's just a novel." And that is unquestionably true. But how many bestselling novels have you read that begin with a page entitled FACT, and how many of them have a FACT page with false claims about the Bible?

There are three inaccuracies in this single sentence about ancient documents we call gospels:

"More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament and yet only a relatively few were chosen for inclusion - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them." Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, p. 231

Brown says this statement is factual, since the gospels are among the documents that he claims on his FACT page to describe accurately in his novel. But he is wrong:

1. We know of 32 gospels--34 if you include the hypothetical gospels of "Q" and "Signs". Thirty-two is far from "over eighty."
2. No one knows how many gospels were considered by the early church for inclusion in the biblical canon. So far as we know, the four gospels in the Bible are the only gospels that were considered.
3. When Brown wrote that relatively few gospels were chosen for inclusion in the Bible--"Mathew, Mark, Luke and John among them" (emphasis mine), he's wrong again. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not four among others included in the Bible. They are the only gospels included in the Bible.

By these three inaccuracies alone, it must be concluded that Brown's universal claim of FACT concerning his descriptions of documents in The Da Vinci Code is patently false, but there is more.

The most absurd claim to me in Brown's novel is the claim that the four gospels in the Bible suppress Jesus' humanity and emphasize his divinity--a repeated claim in The Da Vinci Code. Brown paints this “fact” as the biggest conspiracy and cover-up in history. He further claims that the gospels not included in the Bible have been suppressed, and that they emphasize Jesus' humanity, and are therefore truer than the four biblical gospels. Dan Brown has this exactly backwards. Our four New Testament gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - emphasize Jesus' humanity, and the bulk of the other gospels not found in the Bible (most of them considered to be Gnostic gospels) emphasize Jesus' divinity. Brown, claiming the opposite, could not be more wrong.

Is Brown intentionally lying about the Bible? I don't know. Either he is a shoddy researcher or he's misleading the public on purpose for profit. If the former, why not just apologize for his misstatements? If the latter, shame on him and buyer beware.

Was Jesus Crucified in the Manner Shown in Paintings and Movies?

Roman Crucifixion Methodology 

Was Jesus crucified in the manner shown in paintings and movies?                     

In a word, No.

 

 

Please allow me to show you why he couldn’t have been crucified as portrayed in art and in the media, and allow me to show you how he was likely crucified based on real historical and archaeological evidence.

Notice how that in traditional art and film Jesus is nailed to the front of the cross. This introduces a physically impossibility. A person nailed to the front of the cross could not rest his back against it. He would be forced forward, leaning out away from the cross. Have you noticed how in movies and paintings Jesus is usually upright with his back and buttocks touching the cross upright? Impossible. It’s only possible to simulate that position (his back and buttocks touching the front of the cross) by having your "Jesus" standing with all of his weight on a foot-platform. If you don’t do that, you’ll have to use a harness hidden beneath his loin cloth to literally strap his buttocks to the upright (as they did in what was actually an otherwise great movie—The Gospel of John), because without it "Jesus" will lean out away from the cross dramatically. They discovered this accidentally in the making of the movie. They must have been surprised when the Jesus character leaned outward. They filmed him like this, as is shown in the companion DVD. But in the movie,  they wrapped a strap beneath his loin cloth to keep his buttocks against the cross "fix" this, as you can see in the photo from the film (pictured below). I wonder if the filmmakers realize that they stumbled across the problem I’m addressing here, that Jesus couldn’t have been crucified like in old paintings and movies. Nailed to the front of the cross, a crucified man’s pelvis and chest will lunge forward away from the vertical post.

from the movie, "The Gospel of John"

Herein lies a new problem. Leaning out like that puts a lot of pressure on those nails through the flesh of the palms and tops of the feet. The result? A person nailed to the front of a cross like this would pretty quickly tear free and fall off.

Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., Ph.D.,  Chief Medical Examiner in Rockland County, N.Y. and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology Columbia University College of Physician’s and Surgeons, N.Y. "crucified" both fresh cadavers (or body parts) and living students (using only straps, we hope) to test and study the practice of crucifixion. He proved with cadavers that if a man was nailed to the front of a cross (nailed in the palms and the top of the feet as in paintings and movies), the nail tore through the skin with only about 45 pounds of pressure. A man crucified in this manner could pull free of the cross from sheer body weight alone. But remember a living man could use gravity plus his own strength to pull loose. (I’m not a body builder. I’m a 50-year-old man in good general health. The other day at the gym I arm curled fifty pounds twenty times. Young athletes can do more than twice that. Pulling free from the cross if nailed to the front of it would be easy.) If you nail a man in a couple of places in the wrist instead of the palm, however, it’s more secure. Why? Because if the nail is in the palm, it’s in unsupported flesh that can tear. But a nail through a couple of easy to find spots in the wrist could more securely anchor it in place. This, however, still leaves three problems. 1) Where do you nail the feet so that they don’t pull free, 2) how do you stop a person nailed to the front of a cross from lurching dramatically forward, and 3), given that the head of crucifixion nails is small, how would you stop a man from yanking and causing the nail to pass clean through even his wrists as he tries to escape?

Based on the above evidence alone, it seems to me, the artists and movie makers who show Jesus nailed to the front of the cross are wrong. Their method just won’t work. You can’t nail the full weight of a man to the front of a cross without his body weight and his own muscle strength easily pulling him free. But, just in case you need it, there’s more evidence discovered in the laboratory that show Jesus couldn’t (and wouldn’t) have been nailed to the front of the cross. Zugibe (pictured above in his lab) found that his students "crucified" (with straps) in this manner began having serious difficulties almost immediately. When they lurched forward, as in Zugibe’s lab photo, their chests, shoulders, and arms began cramping in ten to twenty minutes. Only his strongest student was able to stand it for forty-five minutes. Death would come quickly crucified like this, if you didn’t pull free and fall off first! That’s the problem. Roman records indicate that people survived for days on the cross. These victims must have been in a different position, a more comfortable position (relatively speaking), in order to survive that long. But what position did they use?

Let’s start from scratch. I think that I’ve demonstrated that the movies and paintings are probably wrong. Where can we find clues to how it was done? Where can we get information about Roman crucifixion in Jesus’ day? While the Bible offers some details involved in crucifixion, as you will see, it offers us nothing about the shape of the cross or the method the soldiers used to attach Jesus to it, other than they used nails to pierced his hands and feet. Fortunately, we have two additional sources. One is Roman literature from that time. Then, most fortunately, there is the one and only crucified remains ever found. Let’s take a quick look at the literature first.

The sentence of death was described by Romans as sitting on the cross. They attached a peg or seat called a sedile (meaning seat) to the upright post (called the stipes), that the victim could sit on. (Forget the suppedaneum--a foot platform to stand on as pictured--at the bottom of the upright post which helps in passion plays, but was not used by the Romans.)

The peg (sedile) solves a lot of logistical problems. Sitting on the peg makes you more comfortable, so you will suffer longer. That was, after all, the point of crucifixion: prolong death so as to suffer for as long as possible. Roman records refer to a man who was taken off the cross after three days and recuperated. Another man lasted a full week before he died—seven days alive and suffering on the cross. Using a peg for the victim to sit on would make these scenarios possible. And another thing: sitting on a peg would prevent you from lurching forward. The seat would enable you to rest your weight on it, killing gravity’s pull forward away from the cross.

The Roman literature also shows that the crucified weren’t buried. That was part of the horror of it. When they crucified you, you knew up front that you were going to suffer for a long time, eventually dying, and that your body would hang there until it was eaten and your bones scattered by crows, vultures, hyenas, and dogs. The dignity of burial was disallowed everywhere but one place, however. You guessed it. Jerusalem. Because of the Jews religious sensibilities concerning corpses and defilement, the Romans in Jerusalem made exceptions to the rules. Jews would not tolerate dying men or corpses on crosses during Sabbaths and other holy festivals like Passover. This explains two important details from the biblical description of Jesus’ execution: 1) leg-breaking and spearing, and 2) removal and burial.

Leg-breaking and spearing: At about 3:00 p.m. they began breaking the three victims legs. Why? It hastened death. Why did they want to hasten death when the point of crucifixion was to prolong suffering and death? Because it was the eve of both the Jewish Sabbath (Friday) and the annual Passover. They wanted them dead and off the crosses by sunset (about 6 p.m.) that Friday. This is the way John put it:

John 19:31-34   31 Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed.  32 Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him.  33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.

Breaking the legs of victims to hasten death would have only been done on the eve of a holiday in Jerusalem, and nowhere else. Spearing the torso of a victim to confirm his death would have only been done in Jerusalem, and nowhere else. How do we know? Because only in Jerusalem are you going to take a man off the cross. Scavengers removed men from crosses everywhere else in the Roman world. And since the soldiers had to take Jesus off the cross, they had to make doubly sure he was dead first. How did they know he was already dead? A dead man on a cross would look very different from a struggling, suffering man. He’s collapsed, limp, and motionless. No breathing. Eyes are fixed and lifeless. His color very different. So, if it’s your job make sure he’s dead, then what’s the quickest and easiest way to make doubly sure? It’s what John records that a soldier did. He ran Jesus through with his spear.

Removal and burial: Pilate approved the removal of Jesus’ body from the cross for burial, a practice done in Jerusalem, and nowhere else.

Matthew 27:57-60   57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus.  58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him.  59 So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth  60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. (See also Mark 15:43, Luke 23:50-54, and John 19:38-40)

So breaking the legs and spearing of crucified men was not common practice anywhere but in Jerusalem, because the removal of the bodies from the cross for burial was not common practice anywhere but Jerusalem. This brings us to the archaeological evidence of crucifixion.

ossuary (bone box) of Jehohanan

Let’s go back before 1968. After all the thousands of people the Romans crucified, no crucified remains were ever found—for the obvious reason that the bodies were torn apart by scavengers and never buried. But in 1968 something miraculous happened. A first century Jewish tomb was discovered in Jerusalem. The model foot pictured (below, left) demonstrates the actual heelbone of Jehohanan (below, right). In a first century Jewish tomb that contained a first century Jewish bone box (called and ossuary, above), archaeologists found the remains of a first century Jewish crucified man. As was the custom in that day, the victim’s name was scratched on the back side of the box. His name was Jehohanan. He was in his twenties. And he was not crucified like the traditional paintings and movies. By a sheer stroke of good fortune (for us today), his executioners apparently had a hard time getting Jehohanan off of the cross. How do we know? Because the crucifixion nail was still lodged in his heel bone. That’s right, I said his heel.

The man’s feet were not nailed to the front of the cross with a single nail. His heels were attached to the outsides of the post (stipes) with two nails. (See drawings) He was straddling the upright post, his heels nailed to the left and right sides of the cross. But there’s more.

Look at the picture of Jehohanan’s heel bone, the model of his foot, and the drawing of his legs straddling the cross-post.

The nail passed first through a plaque of wood. How do we know? A bit of the plaque was still attached between Jehohanan’s heel and the nail head. What kind of wood was it? Tests showed it was from the Olive Tree. What was the plaque for? It acted like a washer. It broadened the head of the nail. Why? So the victim couldn’t pull free. The heel was secured (tightly sandwiched) between the plaque and the post. After hammering the nail through the plaque of wood it was hammered through the heel bone. Why the heel bone? Because you could tear your skin loose if the nail doesn’t go through bone. The heel bone is the strongest place in the foot to secure the nail. So the nail goes through the plaque/washer, then through the sturdy heel bone, and then into the cross’ upright post.

Jehohanan was nailed to a wooden post. How do we know? When they crucified him, the nail hit a knot in the wood that bent the nail inward creating a hooked tip. (See drawing above) They (Tsafaris, Zias, and others) tested the wood still clinging to the hooked nail-point. It was wood, of course, but the amount was insufficient to determine what kind.

You may be wondering, Why did they leave the nail in Jehohanan’s heel for burial? Apparently they couldn’t get it out! How do we know? After the man died, the soldiers began removing the nails to take him off of the cross for burial. (He, like Jesus and the two who died with him, must have been crucified on the eve of a holy day, since they allowed him to be taken off the cross and buried.) But when they got to the nail in his right heel, they couldn’t get it out. It was hooked in the stubborn knot. So they yanked him free. When they did, the whole apparatus—including a hunk of the knot—came loose with him. There in the bone box, undisturbed for almost two thousand years, archaeologists found a fragment of the hard knot from the post, the nail that had hooked into it, the man’s heel-bone, and the plaque of Olivewood, all still attached (though the wood had decayed significantly) and intact. It was like finding the Holy Grail for those interested in how Jesus died (or how Roman crucifixion was done).

How could Jesus have been nailed through the wrist when the Bible specifically says hands? In the ancient world, the hand begins at the forearm and includes the wrist. In the New Testament, the Greek word for hand is cei,r cheir {pronounced khire}.

Acts 12:7   He struck Peter on the side and woke him up, saying, "Get up quickly!" And the chains fell off Peter’s wrists (cheir*). (italics mine)

*tn Grk "the hands," but the wrist was considered a part of the hand

As the notes of the New English Version confirm, the wrist is a part of the hand in New Testament Greek. The verse literally says, "and his chains fell from off his hands." But you don’t chain people’s hands (as we define hands in English). The shackles go on the wrists. But this isn’t a problem since cheir can mean hands, wrist, or forearm. Therefore, the nails could have gone through Jesus’ forearms, wrists, or palms, linguistically speaking. We’ve ruled out the palms because they couldn’t support a man’s body weight without tearing and causing him to fall off the cross. That leaves the forearm and wrist. If the forearm, then you would nail it between the two bones of the forearm, the radius and the ulna. If the wrist, then two spots present themselves, one in particular is easy to find. Press your finger in the indentation in the back of your wrist. Now I’ll show you why Jesus was probably nailed through the back of his wrist instead of the front.

The question to ask when considering the crucifixion is: What’s the easiest and most efficient way to crucify someone? Or, put it like this: What was the standard method that best secured the man yet maximally prolonged his death?

1. You have a short post (the stipes) in the ground. The victim carries only the patibulum (the horizontal crossbeam) to the location of the stipes (the upright post). There the crossbeam is attached to the post at approximately eyelevel. Both the post and the crossbeam are notched so as to fit together. They secure them with nails.

2. Then the victim can be hoisted onto the peg or seat (the sedile) by two men. His waist and chest are roped to keep him from struggling free. Then his arms and legs are roped in place for nailing: His arms are thrown over the top and behind the crossbeam. His legs straddle the post.

3. They start nails through four small plaques of wood. Two of them are held to the backs of the victim’s wrists on the back side of the crossbeam. The soldier finds the dip in the back of his wrist with his finger. He drives the nail through the plaque, through the back of the wrist, and into the backside of the crossbeam. He does the same with his other wrist. Another soldier meanwhile takes the other two plaques with nails piercing them and holds them over the heel bone, and he drives the nail through the plaque, through the heal, and into the post.

4. Now they remove all the ropes, though removing them isn’t necessary, and they sit down and eat, talk, taunt the victim, gamble for his belongings, and guard him until he dies. It’s necessary that they stay until he’s dead because it would be easy enough to quickly take him off the cross and escape.

Notice that they crucified men eyeball to eyeball with the soldiers and passersby, not up in the sky. It’s about efficiency and ease. Why go to all the trouble and expense to hoist Jesus way up into the air? Typically Jesus’ feet are at least at eye level to those standing by in paintings. In the movie, "Jesus of Nazareth," he’s hoisted up with ropes and pullies on a giant scaffolding. But there’s no point to it. Only two soldiers are needed to sit him on the peg to be tied, then nailed. This all begs the question Why? Why in art and movies is he way up in the air? You won’t believe this:

There is only one reason I can think of for a super tall cross. The biblical record says that when Jesus said he was thirsty, a soldier put a sponge on a stick, dipped it in sour wine, and put it to his lips. Artists assumed that the reason that they had to put the sponge on a stick was because he was crucified up high and out of reach. Why else would the soldier have needed a stick but to extend his reach to get the sponge to Jesus’ mouth? But there is a very good reason why this is wrong, and it’s not pleasant. Several studies have proved, I think, beyond doubt how Romans relieved themselves and cleaned themselves afterward. Look at this photo of a typical public toilet found in every Roman city. 

Notice that the men in the drawings are holding sponges on sticks, and note the channel of running water for rinsing the sponge. 

Notice that the rim is not only open on the top where you sit, but the opening is extended to the front as well. And notice the shallow channel running at the foot of the bench. The channel ran with clean water. Lacking toilet paper in those days, persons used a sponge on a short stick (used as a handle). It was called a xylospongium (xylo- meaning a stick of wood, and -spongium meaning a sea sponge). You wet it, pass it through to opening, clean yourself, rinse in the channel, and repeat as needed.

After the fall of Jerusalem, one of the first tasks of the 10th Roman Legion was to transform the seats of the destroyed theater into toilet seats for their latrine. Graffiti on an ancient bathroom wall in Ostia, Italy refers to using the xylospongium; archaeologists found bits of sponge in the ancient latrine. Classical scholar Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow referred to the sponge on a stick as a "curious devise of daily Roman life." In the Roman poet Martial's Epigrams, he wrote of the "sponge of the damned rod of wood." The Roman philosopher Seneca wrote of a gladiator committing suicide by xylospongium: 

• . . .there was lately in a training-school for wild-beast gladiators a German, who was making ready for the morning exhibition; he withdrew in order to relieve himself, – the only thing which he was allowed to do in secret and without the presence of a guard. While so engaged, he seized the stick of wood, tipped with a sponge, which was devoted to the vilest uses, and stuffed it, just as it was, down his throat; thus he blocked up his windpipe, and choked the breath from his body. That was truly to insult death!

"To insult death," brings us back to the crucifixion. Reasonably, the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus might have on hand a xylospongium, an everyday implement. The sponge on a stick was the equivalent of first century toilet paper. So, even though the stick was short, since Jesus was crucified at eye level, the soldiers would have had no trouble reaching his mouth. I’m sorry for the picture I’m painting because it isn’t pretty. But when Jesus said, "I thirst," one of the soldiers dipped his personal bathroom sponge in sour wine and put it to Jesus’ lips, and it was likely one of several ways mentioned in the Bible that the soldiers mocked and mistreated Jesus. They made sport of him as he died, too: "to insult death." But even more remarkable is that Jesus received the drink without complaint. John says he took it and died. It was the final insult:

• John 19:28-30  28 After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the scripture), "I thirst."  29 A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth.  30 When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished"; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. 

The most accurate sketch I can find of how Jesus was probably crucified is this one by Charles Pickard. Turn his hands around and use nails instead of ropes and it’s perfect. Notice he’s seated on a peg (sedile).

Am I saying that this is certainly the way Jesus was crucified? No. There are still uncertainties. Was the cross +-shaped or T-shaped? Was the upright a post or a tree trunk?

So what’s certain? It is certain, given the biblical record, that Jesus was not crucified "on a hill far away," not if by "on a hill far away" you mean atop a hill some distance from the city of Jerusalem. Romans crucified victims on main roads just outside city gates. They wanted people coming in and going out to witness who is in charge, and demonstrate what can happen to you if you intend to make trouble. Is there biblical evidence that Jesus was crucified right outside of a Jerusalem city gate? Absolutely.

That there were passersby indicates that he was crucified at roadside, as was the Roman practice.

Mark 15:29   Those who passed by derided him . . .

Moreover, John specifically records that many passed by as he was crucified near the city.

John 19:19-20   Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."  20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city;

Do we know the exact spot? I think so, though the evidence isn’t conclusive. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher today is inside the present walls of the Old City of Jerusalem.

But in Jesus’ day, the site of the church is just outside the wall at a main gate, and on a main road. Adjacent to that road (north) is an abandoned stone quarry. It had been abandoned because the quarrymen ran out of usable limestone. What was left was a pit of soft limestone. The area was the site for two things in the first century:

     1.      An abandoned quarry outside the city is a good place for a cemetery. The soft limestone, of no use for building, can easily be carved out for burial caves of a kind specific to first century, Palestine, Judaism. And that is precisely what is there within the walls of the present-day church. Mere feet behind the shrine locating the spot of Jesus’ burial, in the Syrian Chapel, is a first century Jewish tomb (seen in diagram and picture left), proving that the abandoned quarry was turned into a cemetery by Jews of Jesus’ day. Mere feet from the spot venerated as Jesus' sepulchre, this is the tomb next door, and his would have been similar before they razed it to build the shrine.

      2.      There is also in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher a tall outcropping of soft limestone atop which is a chapel marking the traditional site of Jesus’ crucifixion. In Jesus’ day, the tall outcropping of white rock must have resembled a skull—thus the nickname for the spot: The Place of the Skull. Today all that is left is a tall sliver of this "hill". But were Jesus and two other men crucified atop this white outcropping? Not likely. It was roadside at city gates that crucifixions were conspicuously displayed as a warning to troublemakers, perhaps where the red X marks the spot in the photos, or somewhere along one of the roads pictured that entered the city gate. The Romans valued ease and efficiency, and therefore would not likely go to all the trouble of hauling themselves and their equipment and their prisoners up the steep slope of "the skull" to squeeze three crucifixions into a tiny area on top. But the Bible doesn’t say that Jesus was crucified on a hill, or on a white, skull-like outcropping of soft limestone. What it does say is that Jesus was crucified at "the Place of the Skull". Think of Jesus being crucified at roadside in front of the abandoned quarry containing a skull-like outcropping, a garden, and tombs. He wasn't likely on top of the outcropping but in front of it--at the place of the skull. The outcropping in the quarry was the backdrop of his crucifixion at roadside. (The photo shows a model of the quarry beside the main western road into Jerusalem, likely the Place of the Skull and the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial.)

I’ve written too much already for one web log, so I’ll stop here. Maybe I’ll do a Part Two so that I can address who was eligible for crucifixion, what crucified victims wore, what drinks might have been provided, the cause of death, what happens to your family when you have a relative crucified, what Jesus said from the cross and what he meant, other details in the biblical accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion, Paul’s theology of the cross, what the non-canonical Gospel of Peter says, why the Garden Tomb is not the spot, the history of the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the best resources on this subject, and more. It’s a broad subject once you start digging.

Let me leave you with a question that haunts me. If we’ve known about how Jehohanan was crucified since 1968—that’s 45 years ago—, then why haven’t you ever heard anything about this before? I’m afraid it’s true that sometimes traditions don’t want to yield to facts.

For more on the subject of Jesus' crucifixion see my blog Good Friday: Messiah Damned.

Bert Gary is an adjunct faculty member at the Society for Biblical Studies. He is the author of Jesus Unplugged, and his next book is entitled "Heaven for Skeptics."

Jesus Used Parables Like A Sieve

JESUS USED PARABLES LIKE A SIEVE

   By Bert Gary © 2008

An adaptation of Chapter 7 from his book, Jesus Unplugged, from FaithWalk Publishing.

"For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn -- and I would heal them."  Jesus Christ - Matthew 13:15

Introduction

It's not often appreciated how important and central a role Jesus' parables played in his ministry. Did you know that according to the four biblical gospels, Jesus told approximately forty-five parables? (That's a lot.) Did you know that these constitute the bulk of Jesus' public teachings? Did you know that he said that he taught the crowds only in parables that he refused to explain to them? Did you know that these parables are told to explain something he calls "kingdom of heaven," "kingdom of God," or "eternal/abundant life," and that these kingdom parables are considered by most Bible students and teachers to be Jesus' main teaching, the heart of his message? Did you know that he explained the meaning of his parables privately to his disciples? And did you know that he got exasperated with his disciples for failing to understand what he was saying with his parable? 

Don't be surprised if something in this paper is upsetting, because it covers parables that seem by design to be upsetting. Simultaneously, you might be thrilled at the discovery of a "new" Jesus---the bona fide Jesus of scripture.

So without further ado: a parable. 

How can you be so selfish? And you call yourself a Christian?

Perhaps the least familiar and most misunderstood parable Jesus told is the parable of the ten bridesmaids: 

They said, "We know you are good Christian folk, and you believe in helping those in need. We are in an unfortunate situation here. The five of us are out of oil for our lamps. How are we supposed to help you get the groom to the house? We're all going to be in big trouble. We could lose our jobs. Hurry, the groom is approaching; give us some of your oil. We don't need that much. And remember, we have to put food on our tables too. Think of our families! All we need is a little oil. We'll pay you back on Friday, we promise. Think of our children! We can't afford to lose our jobs. It will be your fault! Do you want the guilt of that on your conscience, knowing you could have helped, you could have shared, you could have been a good Christian neighbor, but you didn't give when you had the opportunity? You have a Christian obligation to give out of your abundance. If you don't share your oil with us, shame on you! How can you be so selfish? And you call yourselves Christians?"

But the five bridesmaids who brought extra oil said, "No. This is not our problem. We didn't mess up, you did. Besides, if we give you some of our oil, we might run out before we can get the groom back to the house, and then we would be in trouble. Go to the store! Awake the dealer if you can, and buy your own oil. You're not getting any of ours, not a drop."

But while they went to buy it, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the house, and they bolted the door behind them and began to party. Later the other five came from the store knocking on the door and begging to get in. But the groom looked through the peephole and said, "Who are you? What do you want?" They said, "Lord, lord, it's us! Let us in!" But the groom said, "You're crazy. I don't know any of you," and he returned to the party. 

So stay on your toes, because you don't know the day or the hour. (Based on Matthew 25:1-13)

Does something here strike you as strange? Nobody gets bailed out in this parable. Everyone is held accountable for his own preparation or lack thereof. Moochers are refused. And saying No to them was the right thing to do. They were irresponsible. They blew it. They get no consideration. No sympathy. No handouts. No entitlements. No excuses. They will suffer the consequences of their own failure, and why should anyone feel sorry for them? They made their beds. Now they get to lie in them. Do you recognize Jesus and his kingdom of heaven in this anti-moocher parable?

In his wonderful fable called "The Bridge," therapist and author Rabbi Edwin Friedman unwittingly dealt with the same theme. (Edwin H. Friedman, Friedman's Fables (New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 1990), pp. 9-13.) My retelling of it here is a paraphrase of the original for the sake of brevity: 

A man is crossing a bridge to a new life and a new start when he sees a strange man walking toward him uncoiling a rope from around his body. One end of the rope is tied around his waist. He takes the other end and hands it to the man going on to a new life. Then the stranger jumps.

Hanging on for dear life, the man above yells, "Are you crazy? I was going on to a new life minding my own business, and you hand me this rope and then jump. Why?"

The strange fellow dangling below yells back, "Hang on. You're responsible for me now."

There's various yelling and blaming going back and forth for a while. The man on the bridge is not strong enough to pull the fool up. There's no place to tie him off, and the man is getting tired. What will he do? If he lets go, the stranger will die, and it will be his fault! 

Time passes, he prays desperately, and then . . . Oh, Divine Inspiration . . . 

He calls to the man below, "Hey buddy, I'm giving you this one chance. Obviously I can't pull you up no matter how hard I try, but you sure as hell can climb! I'm going to count to 100. If you haven't climbed up by the time I get to 100, I'm letting go of the rope. 1, . . . 2, . . ."

"Wait," the man below cried. "You're forgetting something. If you let go, I'll fall, I'm dead, and it will be your fault!" 

"19, . . . 20, . . . 21, . . ." 

"You're supposed to have compassion for others. You're supposed to care. You have it in your power to save life, yet you'd let me fall to certain death? How can you be so selfish? How can you call yourself a Christian?"

"61, . . . 62, . . ."

And the man below began to wail, and curse, and gnash his teeth. He screamed every nasty word in the English language that he knew, and a few in various other languages. He spit and gestured obscenely and wailed and writhed at the end of his tether. But he did not climb. He could have, but he didn't.

"98, . . . 99, . . . 100."

So the man on the bridge released his grip, and let go of the rope, and turned toward his new life without guilt or remorse, and walked on, head held high.

It is not fair really to rewrite this zinger-of-a-fable in such an edited down form. But what is needed here is a flavor of the tale to draw the parallel between the fable and Jesus' parable of the ten bridesmaids. The issues are essentially the same:

1. A person or group who could and should take care of himself/themselves tries to get someone else to be responsible for him/them. (Hold this rope. Give us some of your oil.)

2. The response to their request is, No, this is your problem. (Climb up. Go buy your own oil.)

3. The end result is that the irresponsible ones are allowed to suffer the consequences of their own irresponsibility. (He falls to his death. They are shut out of the wedding banquet.)

There was a student in a pastoral care class who responded emotionally to the telling of The Bridge fable and The Ten Bridesmaids parable. He told the class about a sister and brother‑in‑law who had been kicked out of the homes of several family members, and he took them in out of pity. As a part-time pastor, he felt it was the Christian thing to do. He housed them and put them to work in his small, successful business. Within a matter of weeks he realized he was in trouble, and in a matter of months he lost a valuable employee and the business was failing. What should he do? The student said something like, "I let go of the rope! I fired my sister and her husband, and kicked them out of my house (crying at this point). It was the most difficult thing I had ever done. And I really struggled with that decision. I've been unable to convince myself that did the right thing. Now I know it was. If they wouldn't climb, I shouldn't keep holding them up. The only other alternative would have been to let them pull me and my family and our business down the toilet with them. I see that now. I did the right thing. But it was still the hardest thing I'd ever done."

What is Jesus teaching us about a true Christian response---a kingdom of heaven response---to those who show no sign of taking responsibility for themselves?

1. I see clearly that you messed up and are in trouble.

2. No, I will not bail you out.

This works for managers, parents, senators, or any leader. This is the behavior of a mature Christian leader. It is difficult, often painful, but usually best. 

For example, consider parenting. If God does us the favor of letting us mess up, then why not do the same for our children? While sometimes painful, letting go of the rope, letting them suffer the consequences of not bringing extra oil, is the loving thing to do for our children. Their failing and getting into trouble are unavoidable anyway, so why make yourself sick and crazy over it? Let it happen; let them feel the full weight of their failure or mistake; do not bail them out (figuratively or literally as the case may be!), and get on with life.

Now consider Christian evangelism. How do people get the good news of God's salvation in Jesus Christ, and what is a Christian's role in fulfilling "the great commission" to go and tell the world? (Matthew 28:19) In the parable, ten bridesmaids go out as partners and coworkers to do the work of the groom together. Bringing extra oil was everyone's responsibility, and babysitting those who failed to do so was not a part of the arrangement. The five wise bridesmaids say, No, you cannot have any of our oil no matter what dire consequence may result due to your own negligence. The wise ones guided the groom to the house and entered with him into the party. But the other five were locked out due to their own negligence, and no amount of blaming or begging would change that fact.

Need we be reminded that it is God who saves, not we ourselves? Christians can save no one. We do not have the power, nor did God ever ask us to save anyone. The only person's salvation for whom we have responsibility is our own, to work out our own with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12) That is between the Lord and the believer.

Yes, we Christians care about others. We make friends, witness with our lives; some of us even preach and teach and write and talk on the radio or TV; and always we pray that God will work for good in us and in those with whom we come into contact. We can tell the good news of Jesus, and share his wisdom, encourage people to read the scriptures for themselves, and live boldly and proclaim salvation boldly. But that is the extent of it: We offer the story. The rest is up to God. We must have faith that God will use our meager, broken efforts to open ears and eyes, to change people's hearts, and to repair people's lives. To do more than this is to show a lack of faith in God to save, or even worse, to play God by manipulating and coercing belief. Does the name Jim Jones ring a bell? True and faithful evangelism never closes the door to choice. Without choice, evangelism becomes spiritual terrorism (What an oxymoron!).

So concerning evangelism, to say it one more time, a person has to want to know and experience the salvation of God in Jesus, period. There is nothing Christians can do to make them. And if there are persons who do not want to know or believe, we have to be willing to accept it when they choose hell. Remember, most of us have been down there once or twice, and some Christian somewhere had the good sense not to bail us out. Otherwise we might never have learned that hell is a pretty rotten place!

No, Foolish Five, we're not responsible for your failure to bring extra oil.

No, Rope Boy, I'm not bound to hang on if you won't climb.

No, Sweet Sister, I don't have to retain your employment and I don't have to house you and your freeloading husband when you won't pull your weight and you drive away customers and valued employees.

My Palestinian friends in Israel have a saying: "Mish mushkilty!" (spelled phonetically.) They use it comfortably and frequently. I'm told that it translates, "Not my problem!" Christians would do well to learn and use this gem of a phrase. Having learned it, they would do well to practice saying it without guilt. The ten bridesmaids of Jesus' brilliant and difficult kingdom parable, though not in so many words, said that very thing. Kingdom living often requires one to say to whomever, wherever, "Laa! Mish mushkilty." "No! That's not my problem."

When is it right to let people suffer the consequences of their irresponsibility?

More Parables of the Kingdom of Heaven

Having begun with a parable, we move now to a reasonable complaint made by Jesus' disciples: Lord, why do you teach in parables?

The disciples expressed concern about Jesus' parables. (Matthew 13:10) Was he really keeping his audience and their limitations in mind? Peter and the rest were worried that if he talked over their heads, the people would feel stupid, and if they felt stupid, not only would they not understand, but they would not listen---could not listen. Not only could they not listen, but also they would label him "deep" or "intellectual" or "challenging." These labels would be polite ways of saying that Jesus was not much of a speaker. Was Jesus failing to get his message across?

If they had 21st century minds, they probably would have hired a big political consultant, maybe a James Carville, to show Jesus an apostolic pie chart. It would have represented a survey of a sample population of Galileans, about half of whom, as the pie chart would show in red, do not understand his parables about the kingdom of heaven at all. They might have strategized for Jesus a better approach, and alternate course, a Plan B, one that would not insult the liberal elite in Boston, but would at the same time appeal to old Bubba down in Texarkana. They might have had Carville explain to Jesus that if he hoped to hone his message in time for the Passover in Jerusalem, that he had better change his speech strategy now. Keep it simple stupid: no more parables!

But Jesus did not change his game plan. He insisted that the kingdom is a mystery, not a political platform or a campaign strategy:

This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth to speak in parables; I will proclaim what has been hidden from the foundation of the world." (Matthew 13:35) (New Revised Standard Version)

Interestingly, the disciples often asked Jesus to explain parables to them privately, because, we presume, they knew that Jesus would not explain them publicly (Matthew 13:36, 15:15, 19:25; Mark 4:13, 7:17, 10:26; Luke 8:9, 12:41, 18:26; John 6:56-71).

With many such parables he spoke the word to [the people], as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples. (Mark 4:33-34) (New Revised Standard Version)

He absolutely refused to explain it to anybody else.

"To you (the disciples) it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them (the crowds) it has not been given. For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away." (italics mine) (Matthew 13:11-12) (New Revised Standard Version)

When Jesus told parables, those who got it were ready to get it, and it would get clearer and clearer to them until their wisdom was overflowing. But for those who did not get it, it would get more and more unfathomable. That is why he spoke in parables! It was so that they would look but not see. They will listen but not hear. He made sure that some would not understand.

"The reason I speak to them in parables is that 'seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.' With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of that says: 'You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn -- and I would heal them.'" (Matthew 13:13-15; see also Isaiah 6:9)

Why do Christians assume that Jesus' goal was that everyone understand? The kingdom is among you, yet not everyone sees it.

Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you." (Luke 17:20-21) (New Revised Standard Version)

That is the nature of the Kingdom. It is coming and yet it is here. It is a mysterious reality. It is a secret. Who wants everyone to get it? Certainly not Jesus! To the crowds, he told parables, nothing but parables. Like these:

The kingdom of heaven is like an insane farmer who throws seed in every direction. They land on the road, on the rocks, in the briars, all over the place. Not much makes it to fertile soil, but oh when it does, how glorious is the harvest! (based on Matthew 13:1-9)

The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone goes and sows in a field. It is the tiniest of all seeds, but it becomes one of the greatest shrubs, the size of a tree, so big that the soaring eagles can come and build their nests in it! (based on Matthew13:31-32)

The kingdom is like a woman who takes a pinch of yeast and mixes it in with three measures of flour, and the whole thing begins to rise! (based on Matthew 13:33)

The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field. Someone finds it, re‑buries it, then goes and buys that field! (based on Matthew 13:44)

The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls. Then when he finds the pearl of all pearls, he goes and sells everything he owns to buy it! (based on Matthew 13:35-36)

The kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea, and it catches every imaginable kind of fish so that the fishermen have to sit down on the bank and sort the good from the bad. (based on Matthew 13:47-48)

What can we know about the meaning of these kingdom-of-heaven parables? Here are four significant truths.

First, as explained above, it was not Jesus' goal that everybody understand them. He used his parables like a sieve to sift out those that do not comprehend. Those who did not, their incomprehension grew. And those who did, their comprehension increased.

Second, the disciples had a hard time understanding that the kingdom of heaven is here. "For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you." (italic mine) [FYI: There is a footnote in most translations of these verses that give "within" or "inside" as alternative translations for "among." The Greek entos) (Luke 17:20-21)] In addition to the kingdom having already come in Jesus, and the kingdom coming on the last day, Jesus insists that it is here among you, around you, and in you, and yet not everyone sees it.

Jesus pointed often to the hypocritical Pharisees. Most of them were not celebrating Jesus' ministry of teaching and healing. Yet if they had recognized the in-breaking kingdom, if they had realized who he was, if they had understood his announcement of the in-breaking kingdom of heaven, they would have been dancing and feasting too, rather than complaining about all the dancing and feasting. (Matthew 9:14-15) Luke put it so well:

As [Jesus] came near and saw [Jerusalem], he wept over it, saying, "If you, even you, had only recognized on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Indeed, the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you, and hem you in on every side. They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave within you one stone upon another; because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God."

Then he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling things there; and he said, "It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer'; but you have made it a den of robbers."

Every day he was teaching in the temple. The chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people kept looking for a way to kill him; but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people were spellbound by what they heard. (italics mine) (Luke 19:41-48) (New Revised Standard Version)

Jerusalem as a whole was held responsible for failing to recognize the hour of his coming. Yet Jesus saddled the religious leader with the greater responsibility for that failure---especially the Pharisees, who should have known better. The word blind is in bold here for emphasis:

"Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind." (Matthew 15:14 )

"Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit?" (Luke 6:39)

"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath.' You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred?

"And you say, 'Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar is bound by the oath.' How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?" (Matthew 23:16-19)

"I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind." Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not blind, are we?" Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." (John 9:39-41) (New Revised Standard Version)

Jesus knew exactly what was going on in Jerusalem. The blind were leading the blind. Jerusalem was slip sliding away into Gehenna [FYI: Gehenna in Hebrew is Ge-Hinnom, meaning the Hinnom Valley; this valley is the burning garbage dump and sewer, south and downhill of Jerusalem. It is one of Jesus favorite metaphors for damnation. It is often translated as "hell."] because the leaders did not see the kingdom of heaven in their midst. They were blind. Look at how blind: They thought Jesus to be a sinner (John 9:24), a glutton and a drunkard (Matthew 11:9), a demon (John 8:48), and a lunatic (Mark 3:21).

I got a greeting card once with a quote from an unknown author. It read, "Those who hear not the music think the dancers mad." So true.

Third, consider the pressure Jesus was under to do things the way his family wanted them done, the way his disciples wanted them done, the way the crowds wanted them done, and how again and again he took stands that either disappointed or enraged. The use of parables is just one example. The disciples could not understand why he used them. (Matthew 13:10) They were concerned that the crowds just were not going to get it. And they asked him to please just come right out and tell us what the kingdom is. (Or, as John 14:8 records it, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.") But Jesus stood his ground. It was not a popular thing to do, but it is what he knew to be the right thing to do. It is called self‑differentiation. (Edwin H. Friedman, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue (New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 1985) referenced throughout). It has to do with the ability to maintain a strong sense of self, to take stands that are unpopular when necessary, and to remain non‑anxious when everyone else is worried.

Fourth, Jesus never once said that the kingdom of heaven is the place where you "go" when you die. That is of course what most Christians today believe. But that is not what Jesus said. The Lord's Prayer reads, "thy kingdom come." (italic mine) (Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2) According to Jesus, we do not go to the kingdom of heaven; it is coming to us! Moreover, Jesus only spoke directly about what happens when you die a grand total of two brief times [notwithstanding his debate with the Saducees about marriage in the resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33), his parable of greed about a poor man named Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), and his parable about presumption where sheep and goats are separated (Matthew 25:31-46). This teaching and these two parables will be covered in detail in my next book, Heaven for Skeptics)].

First, in John's Gospel, Jesus is recorded as saying, "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you." (John 14:2) Jesus promised his disciples that he was returning to his Father (via the cross and resurrection) and that they would in their deaths and in the resurrection on the last day join him in "his Father's house." Then second, Luke records that Jesus turned to one of the crucified men hanging with him and said, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43)

In neither of these two cases did Jesus call what happens after death "heaven;" he used the words "my Father's house" and "Paradise." In neither case did Jesus threaten anyone with punishment. In neither case was he descriptive. Neither did he connect "his Father's house" and "Paradise" with his very brief mentions of "the resurrection of the dead" (Matthew 22:30-31; John 5:28-29, 11:25), though to my way of thinking he could have. The Bible advocates not the traveling of your bodiless soul to heaven, but the resurrection of your body to immortality when heaven comes!

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:51-57 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality,

1 Thessalonians 4:13-15 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. (New International Version)

It was the Greeks and Romans who believed that when your body dies, your immortal soul leaves your body and journeys to the abode of the dead, a place called Hades. This is a thoroughly pagan idea, and is contradictory to scriptural bodily resurrection. Almost inexplicably, Christians today prefer the pagan myth and Plato to scriptural truth and Jesus when it comes to death, as I am sure you are aware.

Other than these two instances---when he spoke of "his Father's house" and "Paradise"---Jesus just did not cover the topic of life after death. I have, in the preceding paragraph, written far more than all four gospels on the topic of what happens when you die! That being the case, there is a problem here. It is critical that we unpack this fourth truth about the kingdom of heaven, and it is true: Jesus rarely spoke of what happens in death. Ironically and tragically, is it not also true that many if not most sermons preached today are about what happens when you die; and is it not true that the result of this is that most Christians believe that Christianity is about securing where you go when you die? This does not make sense. Jesus did not preach about what happens when you die at all! He preached about how to recognize, enter, and live abundantly in the kingdom of heaven.

The kingdom, as Jesus explained it in parables, is the mysterious eternal presence of God at work in the world, past and present and future, a reality recognized and entered by faith, a reality that transcends time and space, yet intersects time and space. He did not give instructions on what death would be like, but on how to enter the kingdom and live! He came so we could have life, and have it abundantly. (John 10:10b) He spoke constantly of this. 77 times in 68 verses in Matthew's Gospel alone the word "heaven" occurs. Yet not one of those instances has anything to do with what happens when you die! On the contrary, the majority of these have everything to do with how you live, here and now.

Why then do we have sermon after sermon threatening humanity with the bad things that will happen when one dies if one does not say "the magic Jesus words?" Where does this preoccupation with death come from? Certainly not from Jesus whom, we should presume, is the one we Christians are to follow and proclaim.

There is something very wrong when Christian leaders, who are supposed to be proclaiming what Jesus proclaimed---faith and life---, are instead making their standard message fear and death.

I do not recall ever reading that Jesus attempted to frighten people to God. But I frequently read and hear Christians do that. I do not recall reading that Jesus said, "Come unto me, or you will die and God will punish you!" But I frequently hear or read this in not so many words in Christian circles. This is so illogical and non‑scriptural, it is difficult to fathom its continuing prevalence.

It seems that many Christians have resorted to using terroristic threats to "win souls" (and consequently increase church attendance and giving). They say things like, God will punish you if you don't believe. You may not have more time. This may be your last chance. What these teachers want you to believe is that God's default setting is hell, and it's up to you to change God's mind about you. To them, salvation doesn't change you. It changes God! You are being saved by your own effort from a God who doesn't like you and has evil plans for you for all eternity. This "gospel" is founded on fear and death, and the author of it is supposedly God? This is depraved!

When was it determined that a message of fear would be more affective than Jesus' message of faith in God's amazing grace? Are we really comfortable with using scare‑tactics as a primary method of Christian evangelism? Do we have so little faith in the Holy Spirit to convict and convert? Why do pastors feel they have to shock people, or browbeat people, or sing the hymn Just As I Am for twenty minutes or more while they pressure people? This is insane. Such methods are actually a vote of "no confidence" in good news! They are, as a result, a vote for bad news.

If God is love (1 John 4:8, 16) and perfect love casts out all fear (1 John 4:18), then how can fear bring people to God?

"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love." (1 John 4:18) (New Revised Standard Version)

Think about it. Let's say you were frightened into becoming a Christian by a visiting pastor making threats one night, say, at a revival altar call. Please allow me to ask you, Why did you become a Christian? To be honest, would you not have to tell me that you became a Christian because someone preached bad news to you? If you were trapped by fear-tactics, then you were not lured by love. Now, be really honest. Is the biblical gospel about love or fear? If it is about love, then does it not follow that much of Christian evangelism today is just plain messed up? Messed up how? It is fear-based and death-obsessed. It is also invasive. It is impersonal. It is manipulative. It is extorting. It is dishonest. It is unbiblical. It's hell-possessed. It is un-Christian. And it is wrong. Otherwise it is just hunky-dory!

Sarcasm aside, there is of course another way, a less brutal way, and a more biblical way. That way is the way of Jesus, who spoke of life and celebration, of banquets and parties, who condemned religious hypocrisy and self‑righteousness, who unfolded the mysteries of faith in stories and images. Is that not good enough anymore? Is the "real" message too confusing or too frightening or too mysterious to be practical in terms of the all‑important priority of church growth (whatever that is)?

It is worth pondering. Is it not the cross that we are afraid of---that if we were to actually say what Jesus said, and do what Jesus did, that "the church" would be rejected, be crucified if you will, by the culture from whom it would covet respect and acceptance?

Or maybe it is just that Christian leaders like power---the power to hold the club of eternal death over the head of a smirking, disrespectful world. (How cynical is that?)

Is there anything you wish you could say to your pastor right now about his preaching?

Conclusion

You have now read four scriptural truths about the kingdom of heaven. Here is a summary:

1. Jesus sorts out those who understand the kingdom of heaven from those who do not by speaking of the mystery in parables that he refuses to explain.

2. Those who understand the kingdom of heaven know that it is a reality that is here among us, around us, and in us, and that those who see it are dancing, and those who do not are complaining about all the dancing.

3. In spite of pressure to change his method, Jesus risked disappointing and confusing those around him by sticking to his guns and talking about the kingdom of heaven in parables only.

4. According to Jesus, we do not go to the kingdom of heaven. It came, it is coming, and it will be coming to us. It is not about death, but life that is full and rich and real and abundant and overflowing eternally now.

Jesus used parables like a sieve to strain out those who did not "get it." He did not do that to judge anyone or to pick on anyone or to condemn anyone. On the contrary I believe that the parables were his choice weapon because it benefited those who understood them by increasing their wisdom, and it benefited those who didn't understand them by first confounding them, then frustrating them, then irritating them, then enraging them, so that maybe, just maybe it will occur to the hardheaded among us (I'm guilty.) that maybe the problem I have with Jesus' parables is not that they are duds or that Jesus tells them badly or Jesus is a fool or a troublemaker. Maybe the parables drop me on my head so hard that I finally see that the problem I have with Jesus' parables is me---my hardheadedness or hardheartedness. Parables are the perfect box cutter for hard cases like me. They make you so mad! But that may be exactly what he intended, to infuriate and confound the presumptuous self-righteousness of do-gooders and legalists. He didn't do this to judge or condemn, but to try and get through your defenses. He told infuriating parables on purpose in hope to save us from ourselves. He told them to save us from the yoke of a legal self-salvation scheme we cooked up. How so?

Remember that he did not come into the world to judge it, but to save it. (John 12:47b) And he will not accuse you to his Father; but he said that your accuser is Moses. (John 5:45) He said that your accuser is Moses because the laws of Moses have become a curse. They were given in love to baby-sit (Gal 3:24) a people newly liberated from slavery in Egypt. (The Book of Exodus) They were meant to secure their safety until God's law of love could be written on their hearts. The laws of Moses were never meant to be a means of earning merit before God. For if your commandment-keeping performance is what God chooses to judge you by, then you are lost. No one can keep the commandments. And if no one can keep them, then no one can be saved. All who try fail. That is why the law, good in and of itself, has become a curse.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." (Galatians 3:10) (English Standard Version)

Therefore, since no one can obey all the things in the law, no one can be saved by the law, and Moses the lawgiver becomes our accuser. Jesus said he would not accuse us to God. Our accuser is Moses who gave the law that cannot be kept. 

Jesus' parables sifted those who received the kingdom of heaven's grace from those who refused it and were hell bent on earning their way by scorekeeping with the law. Either you want the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, or you want the legal scales so you can count your beans!

For more on Jesus' parables see my blogs The Absurd Parable of the Unforgiving Slave, The God Who Gambles, Parable of the Vine and Branches, The Crooked Manager, The Friend at Midnight, Heaven Is Like a Crazy Farmer, He Speaks Of . . ., Salted With Fire, Talking Sheep and Goats, Is Your Eye Evil?, Two Prodigals and Their Strange Father, The Lazarus Parable Is Not About the Afterlife,and Jesus Used Parables Like a Sieve.