|
Jesus Frowned upon Hypocracy, Morgan points out.
Morgan begins by pointing out that hypocrisy was
frowned upon by Jesus. He argues:
There are, to be sure, a number of biblical references
which clearly indicate that Jesus viewed hypocrisy as
a serious character defect, a character defect
deserving of scorn and ridicule. Jesus often used the
term "hypocrite" to express his contempt for those
persons, particularly the Pharisees, whose
hypocritical behavior he found objectionable. (A few
examples are: Matthew 6:2, 6:5, 6:16, 7:4-5, 23:13,
23:15, 23:23, 23:25, 23:29; Luke 12:1, 12:56, 13:15.)
We're in agreement so far.
We are also taught that Jesus was the only completely
perfect person that ever lived--an absolutely unique
combination of God and man. (At least a few biblical
references support this viewpoint: John 1:1 with
1:14-15, 1:18, 8:28, 10:30; Hebrews 5:79, 7:28.)
I assume Morgan meant Hebrews 5:7-9 rather than
Hebrews 5:79.
Morgan then argues:
It would be reasonable, therefore, to expect Jesus to
never demonstrate, in his own behavior, even the
slightest trace of anything which could possibly be
construed as hypocrisy.
This is where the problem begins. As I shall point out
later in my critique of Morgan's arguments, Morgan
sneakily makes use of assuming that Jesus is merely
human like us, whereas we can see by the quote above
that Morgan thinks we should assume that Jesus is some
perfect heavenly creature who can't have human defect.
I'd like to set the record straight from the
beginning, that if Morgan is to assume that Jesus is
God and man for the sake of argument, he would have to
admit that he cannot always expect Jesus to conform to
human standards, nor necessarily always expect Jesus
to conform to Godly standards. For example, rules
given only to humans we should not necessarily expect
to be followed by God, and things endured by Jesus eg.
hunger, thirst, temptation, tiredness etc., should not
necessarily be expected as things endured by God in
heaven.
Now, let's get into the nitty gritty. Morgan begins by
arguing:
Jesus taught: "With God, everything is possible"
(Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27), and: "All
things are possible to him who believes" (Mark 9:23).
He went on to say: "if you have faith as a grain of
mustard seed (which is little or no faith at all, of
course) you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here
to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be
impossible for you" (Matthew 17:20; Luke 17:6 is
similar).
Yet, allegedly because of the unbelief of others,
Jesus himself was sometimes unable to perform any
miracles (Matthew 13:58; Mark 6:5).
Even more surprising is the apparent lapse of faith
that Jesus seems to have experienced during his ordeal
on the cross when he cried out: "My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).
I don't know whether Morgan didn't even bother to read
the verses he quoted (or think at all about them),
because his arguments above are just plain ridiculous.
Morgan probably just quickly skimmed over the verses
and wrote them up if they had any correlation
whatsoever with what he is arguing, so as to make his
case seem stronger. Claiming that such-and-such
occurred and putting Biblical verses next to it will
convince people, because rarely does anyone bother
actually looking at the verses quoted. Morgan is
obviously very sneaky, because the point at which his
case is weakest (the middle paragrah), he doesn't
actually quote was is written in the verses before
putting the references in brackets, even though he
does for all the others - a very disingenuous move
indeed! But, by exposing the verses he put up for what
they really are, perhaps he won't be able to sneakily
convince people of Jesus' so-called 'hypocrisy'.
Let's look at Matthew 13:58, a verse he uses in
support of his claim that "because of the unbelief of
others, Jesus himself was sometimes unable to perform
any miracles". Matthew 13:58 actually says:
"And he did not do many miracles there because of
their lack of faith."
How has Morgan managed to conclude that Jesus must
have been physically unable to perform miracles there?
The obvious exegesis for that verse is that Jesus
chose not to do many miracles there, because they
would be wasted on people who would not believe - not
that Jesus was physically unable to perform them
because other people didn't have faith! You know
someone's grasping at straws when they interpret the
verse in such a messy way!
The other verse Morgan uses in support of his claim is
Mark 6:5. This verse states:
"He could not do any miracles there, except lay his
hands on a few sick people and heal them."
It's very interesting that Morgan has decided Jesus
was unable to perform miracles there, even though
Jesus actually did lay his hands on a few sick people
and heal them! More likely, considering the fact that
Jesus did perform miracles there, is that Jesus
refused to perform many because faith in Jesus is a
prerequisite for true spiritual healing. What then is
Donald Morgan's claim? Did he, as seems quite likely,
just disingenuously write his argument up without
properly quoting the verses?
However, we've still got Morgan's complaint that Jesus
had a lapse of faith on the cross when he quoted Psalm
22:1 in saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken
me?" But, according to Christian theology, Jesus was
innocent, yet bore the punishment for our sins. He
went to hell, because the Father 'turned his back on
him' so to speak. Who wouldn't, at the moment of being
'forsaken' by God, cry out in this way?
Morgan then goes on to argue that Jesus breaks 'The
Golden Rule', has considerable difficulty in loving
his neighbour as himself and in loving his enemies,
even though he commanded that people do so.
Morgan is once again guilty of using very sneaky
tactics to make his case seem stronger. We've already
noticed his tactics previously in not quoting the
verses before providing the Scriptural references, in
which the verses were conveniently very weak and
misinterpreted. Now, his sly tactics have surfaced
once again. Let's just see his argument again so I can
point this out properly:
He showed little regard for his gentile neighbors, for
example, and equated them with "dogs" Mark 7:27, once
instructed his disciples to "Go nowhere among the
gentiles" (Matthew 10:5), and even at first refused to
heal a gentile child, finally doing so only after the
child's mother came up with a clever saying (Matthew
15:21-28).
Obviously Morgan is not expecting his readers to check
the Biblical references he provides, because two of
the references he names in his argument (Mark 7:27 and
Matthew 15:21-28) are the exact same thing! They are
parallel passages, but Morgan sees nothing dishonest
about naming them separately and writing "and even"
before citing Matthew 15:21-28 as if it is a
completely different situation. Sure, Morgan argues
that calling the Gentiles "dogs" and initially
refusing to heal a Gentile child are separate
instances of hypocrisy, but by citing the references
separately and referring to the "gentile neighbors" in
Mark 7:27 as if they are different people to the
"gentile child" and the "child's mother" in Matthew
15:21-28 is a furtive and insidious thing to do. Why
didn't Morgan use the same Scriptural references? Why
didn't he write "He showed little regard for his
gentile neighbors, for example, and equated them with
"dogs" Matthew 15:26 and even at first refused to heal
the child of the same Gentile he compared to a "dog",
finally doing so only after the child's mother came up
with a clever saying (Matthew 15:21-28)"? In my
rewritten example of Morgan's argument, the same
passage in Matthew 15 is quoted for both examples.
Morgan obviously quoted the Mark example in the first
argument and the Matthew example in the second,
because he wanted to trick his readers into thinking
that it was more than one situation of Jesus'
"hypocrisy". Well, considering the mental gymnastics
required to argue that Jesus was a hypocrite, I guess
I can't blame Morgan for grasping at any greasy straw
he can get.
Anyway, let's get into an analysis of the verses he
quotes.
The first reference (which incidentally can be
combined with the third!) states:
"The woman came and knelt before him. 'Lord, help me!'
she said. He replied, 'It is not right to take the
children's bread and toss it to their dogs.' 'Yes,
Lord,' she said, 'but even the dogs eat the crumbs
that fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus
answered, 'Woman, you have great faith! Your request
is granted.' And her daughter was healed from that
very hour." - Matthew 15:25-28
Now, I'm not going to go into a long-winded
explanation of why this passage is not as harsh as it
looks. That is dealt with here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html
Instead, I'm merely going to ask Morgan where the
hypocrisy lies in Jesus' actions/statements. The
Messiah was theologically intended only for the Jews -
the Gentiles intended to be evangelised to by the Jews
themselves. So, even though the Canaanite woman was
not first priority, she still got her request granted
by Jesus in the end anyway. How were Jesus' actions
not loving? I should also point out that the Greek
word used in this instance for "dogs", "kunarion", is
the diminutive, meaning "little dog", rather than the
possibly insulting "keleb". What reason does Morgan
have to think that this word 'dog' was insulting,
particularly since the text shows no signs that the
Canaanite woman was the least bit insulted?
Morgan's other attempt at showing Jesus' "hypocrisy"
was Matthew 10:5, which, in addition to verse 6
states:
"These twelve Jesus sent out with the following
instructions: 'Do not go among the Gentiles or enter
any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost
sheep of Israel.'"
This passage is where Jesus sends out the 12 disciples
to spread the Gospel, and the primary purpose of
Jesus' mission while on earth was to appeal
specifically to God's people of Israel i.e. the Jews.
This did change after the Resurrection, with Jesus
commanding his followers to "make disciples of all
nations" (Matthew 28:19), and with Jesus' openness
already toward non-Jews, for example, the Centurion
(Matthew 8:5-13). So, once again, I'm having trouble
understanding the alleged hypocrisy in this verse. So
far Morgan really seems to be grabbing at any
evidence, no matter how bad or convoluted it is, to
support his case.
Another thing I should also point out is that Jesus,
having his message coming from the Father (John
12:49-50) and being part of the Godhead, should not be
expected to follow every law or command laid down
himself. Otherwise, God doesn't have a right to judge
people because we shouldn't judge (Matthew 7:1) etc.
If teachers create school rules that the students must
observe, such as "wear your uniform at all times",
should the teachers then be expected to wear school
uniform at all times as well? Obviously not, and
Morgan should realise that Jesus does not necessarily
have to follow the rules that he lays down for other
people. "Hypocrisy" is defined as "the act of
pretending to have a character or beliefs, principles,
etc., that one does not possess." If Jesus said "I
never call anyone a fool" and then called people
"fools", then Morgan may have a reasonable case. But,
he doesn't. And that leads well into Morgan's next
argument:
Jesus often accused the Pharisees (and others who did
not share his opinions) of being "vipers" or
"hypocrites" ( Matthew 12:34, 15:7, 22:18, 23:27,
23:33; Mark 7:6 as well as previously listed
references). He even went so far as to call some of
them "fools" after having specifically admonished
others not to use this term, warning that to do so
would make them liable to the "fire of hell!" (Matthew
5:22, 23:17).
I don't see the hypocrisy in Jesus calling others
'vipers' or 'hypocrites'. Is it unloving to be honest?
And, as I pointed out above, what is the big deal in
Jesus calling others 'fools', considering that Jesus,
as part of the Godhead, does not have to necessarily
observe rules laid down to us? Moreover, Matthew 5:22
says that anyone who says "You fool!" will be in
danger of the fire of hell. That doesn't mean they're
necessarily going there! It means "be careful!"
Perhaps the misuse of the term "fool" is what entails
the 'fire of hell' (though it seems a typical Rabbinic
hyperbolic comment anyway).
Morgan tries to deal with Jesus' Anger
Jesus also spoke out against anger: "Anyone who is
angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment"
(Matthew 5:22); in fact, the context equates anger
with killing. It is surprising, therefore, to find
that, on several occasions, Jesus displayed his own
anger.
Yes, Jesus did speak out against anger, but it was
once again in the context of someone being angry with
his brother - brother being a term used throughout the
New Testament as referring to fellow believers. It is
therefore not surprising that in the examples anger
Morgan gives below, Jesus is never angry at someone
who believes in him.
Morgan uses the following as examples of Jesus' anger,
and therefore his supposed 'hypocrisy':
"He looked around at them angrily" (Mark 3:5), angrily
"cleansed" the temple (Matthew 21:12-15; Mark
11:15-19; Luke 19:45-47; John 2:13-17 ), and angrily
"cursed" a fig tree when it failed to yield fruit OUT
OF SEASON (Matthew 21:19; Mark 11:12-14), reacted with
noticeable anger to the accusation of being "demon
possessed," or crazy (Matthew 12:22-31; Mark 3:20-30),
"cursed" the inhabitants of several cities who were
not sufficiently impressed with his "mighty works" to
believe what he taught (Matthew 11:22-24; Luke
10:13-15), and seldom if ever responded politely to
those who differed with his teachings or objected to
his behavior.
With the exceptions of Matthew 12:22-31 (and Mark
3:20-30) where Jesus does not show "noticeable anger",
and Matthew 21:19 (and Mark 11:12-14) where he was
angry at a fig tree (!), Morgan is correct in that
Jesus was angry at the people he mentioned. But there
are a couple of points in response to Morgan's
argument:
1. Anger in itself is not sinful - if you have due
cause to be angry at someone, and you are slow to
anger, then it is fine. Some manuscripts of Matthew
5:22 even say "anyone who is angry with his brother
without cause will be subject to judgment."
2. Why should Jesus have to necessarily follow the
rules he lays down for us anyway? 'Hypocrisy' would be
if Jesus claimed to never get angry and then get
angry. He never does such a thing.
Well, only two more sections left in Morgan's
arguments - unfortunately he demonstrates yet again
that he is guilty of insidious semantic games and poor
Biblical exegesis. This time, he argues that Jesus
broke the Old Testament command of "Honor your father
and mother":
There are no biblical references whatever to indicate
that Jesus ever spoke to his father, Joseph.
I don't know whether this is meant to be an argument
that Jesus never spoke to his father, or whether it is
just some introductory irrelevancy. I don't think that
Morgan would sink to such a low level of using this as
an argument that Jesus never spoke to his father, but
just in case, I'd like to point out that the Gospels
didn't record everything Jesus said in his lifetime!
Donald Morgan goes on to argue:
"How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I
had to be in my Father's house?" was his retort when
his parents came looking for him (Luke 2:49). At the
wedding in Cana, when his mother mentioned to him that
the wine was running low, Jesus replied: "Woman, what
have you to do with me?" (John 2:4). Similarly, at his
crucifixion Jesus said to his mother: "Woman, behold
your Son" as he entrusted her to his disciple (John
19:26). If there was ever a time that Jesus spoke
respectfully to his mother or father, we have not been
told about it.
Let's break this down into bite-sized portions:
"How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I
had to be in my Father's house?" was his retort when
his parents came looking for him (Luke 2:49).
Retort? What was severe or cutting about Jesus' reply?
How was he being dishonorable?
At the wedding in Cana, when his mother mentioned to
him that the wine was running low, Jesus replied:
"Woman, what have you to do with me?" (John 2:4).
Similarly, at his crucifixion Jesus said to his
mother: "Woman, behold your Son" as he entrusted her
to his disciple (John 19:26).
Morgan has to demonstrate that to address someone as
'woman' in Jesus' time carries the same disrespectful
connotation as it does today. The text shows no signs
of Jesus' mother being at all insulted by his remarks
in either instance. In fact, there is evidence against
"woman" being a sign of disrespect. Jesus uses "woman"
to refer to people in John 4:21, 8:10, 19:26, 20:15,
Matthew 15:28 and Luke 13:12, and in no case do any of
the people take any noticeable signs of offence to it.
In fact, "woman" was used in Josephus Antiquities
17.17 by Pheroras to summon his beloved wife. But,
that doesn't stop Morgan from trying, as is shown by
his next desperate attempt at demonstrating Jesus'
'hypocrisy':
On at least one occasion, even his own family tried to
restrain him when he appeared to be acting rather
strangely (and as a consequence, had attracted quite a
bit of attention): "And when his family heard about
it, they went out to seize him, for people were
saying, 'He is beside himself [crazy]. He is possessed
by Beelzebul'" (Mark 3:21).
I'd like for Morgan to point out where in this passage
Jesus 'appeared to be acting rather strangely'. But
even if he can, how does this passage demonstrate that
Jesus was dishonoring his father and mother?
Morgan's last attempt for the "Honor your Father and
Mother" section is this:
His disgraceful death on a Roman cross could only have
brought dishonor to his mother and father "...for it
is written, 'Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree'"
(Galatians 3:13). (See the "Living Bible" version of
Galatians 3:13 and Deuteronomy 21:22-23 for the full
significance of death upon the cross.)
I don't have a Living Bible version, but I don't think
I really need to look it up, because Morgan and I are
in agreement that death on a cross was a significant
and cursed thing. The full verse of Galatians 3:13 is:
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by
becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is
everyone who is hung on a tree.'"
But, Morgan can't merely quote that verse and assume
he's correct. He has to show:
1. That Jesus' death on the cross brought dishonor to
his mother and father rather than just to himself
2. That Jesus needed to follow the Old Testament law
of "Honor your father and mother" anyway!
and in the case that Morgan is able to do both those
things:
3. That Jesus' death on the cross was not more
important than the law of "Honor your father and
mother", and thus, any compromise on the law was
uncalled for.
I highly doubt that Morgan can demonstrate those three
things, but I ought to give him a go...
And finally, Morgan argues under a section titled
"Honesty", that Jesus didn't always tell the truth.
This section is probably the most cogent of all the
sections he has in his article, but that's not saying
much! He introduces the argument by pointing out the
following:
Jesus taught: "Let what you say be simply 'yes' or
'no"' ( Matthew 5:37 ) thereby implying the principle
of honesty. He often prefaced his statements with
"Truly, truly, I say to you" as if to emphasize his
own commitment to honesty. On some occasions, he went
even further saying such things as: "My testimony is
true" (John 8:14), "I am the truth" (John 14:6), and
"I was born... to bear witness to the truth" (John
18:37). He equated lying with evil (Matthew 15:19;
Mark 7:22) and called the Devil "the father of lies"
(John 8:44).
Apart from Matthew 5:37 which is referring to oaths
rather than necessarily to honesty, Morgan is right.
Honesty is a very important thing and Jesus did claim
to be truthful. So, unlike all the other examples of
'hypocrisy' Morgan has given thus far, Jesus actually
did claim to be honest, so if he was dishonest, Morgan
may have his first reasonable argument for Jesus'
so-called hypocrisy!
Morgan writes:
Yet, in spite of his self-proclaimed honesty, JESUS
DID NOT ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH!
I must ask, what is the point of the capitals? Morgan
used them quite a bit in his last section, as well as
using them in the conclusion and in the title. Sure,
it may make his case a little more forceful, but it's
not considered proper "netiquette".
Morgan's first argument against Jesus' honesty is:
Once, when his brothers urged him to accompany them to
Jerusalem for the Feast of the Tabernacles, Jesus told
them that he would NOT be going, but then he later
went secretly to Jerusalem by himself ( John 7:2-10 ).
(Note: the words "not yet" which appear in some
versions at John 7:8 are an editorial "emendation" to
the original text in an apparent effort to rectify the
obvious inconsistency between what Jesus said he would
do and what he actually did do.)
I must congratulate Morgan on the first example of
Jesus' so-called "hypocrisy" which is partly
reasonable. However, considering the high moral
character of Jesus everywhere else in the Gospels, and
the fact that there is no other example of Jesus being
hypocritical anywhere else, we should look for a
harmonisation, which, funnily enough, is not hard to
find.
Firstly, Morgan blanketly dismisses the word "yet" as
an editorial 'emendation', but I don't think he is
completely warranted in doing so. Some early
manuscripts do not contain the word "yet", but that
isn't a definitive proof that "yet" was added to avoid
the inconsistency. Even so, I shall grant Morgan his
assumption, because it does seem that the more likely
original reading was "not" rather than "not yet".
Even so, rather than blanketly assuming that Jesus
committed an outright lie, we must assess what Jesus
was saying no to. First, here's the passage in its
entirety:
"But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near,
Jesus' brothers said to him, 'You ought to leave here
and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the
miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public
figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these
things, show yourself to the world.' For even his own
brothers did not believe in him.
Therefore, Jesus told them, 'The right time for me has
not yet come; for you anytime is right. The world
cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify
that what it does is evil. You go to the Feast. I am
not going up to this Feast, because for me the right
time has not yet come.' Having said this, he stayed in
Galilee.
However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he
went also, not publicly, but in secret." - John 7:2-10
So, here's an outline of the situation:
1. The brothers told him to go to the Feast of
Tabernacles to show himself to the world and perform
miracles, in a public manner. The clause 'no one who
wants to become a public figure acts in secret'
indicates that the disciples were telling Jesus to go
under the assumption that he wanted to be a public
figure, that he would go to perform miracles and to
show himself to everyone.
2. Jesus denied that he would be going (carrying with
it the connotation that he wouldn't be going in that
manner or for that purpose.
3. Jesus ended up going, not publicly (as he said he
wouldn't), but secretly (as he didn't say he
wouldn't).
So, verse 10 which says "However, after his brothers
had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly,
but in secret" indicates that Jesus was not telling an
outright lie, because it contains the clause that
Jesus did not go publicly. Since Jesus only denied to
his brothers that he wouldn't be going publicly to
show himself and perform miracles, the fact that he
turned up in secret is not an indicator that Jesus
lied.
Morgan's next argument is:
During his hearing before the high priest, Jesus said:
"I have spoken openly to the world; I have ALWAYS
taught in the synagogues and in the temple, where all
Jews come together; I NEVER spoke secretly" (John
18:20) This is in direct contradiction, however, to
what we find elsewhere. Not only did Jesus teach in
places other than synagogues and the temple, but HE
HIMSELF SPECIFICALLY INDICATED THAT HIS TEACHINGS WERE
NOT ALWAYS OPEN, BUT WERE SOMETIMES INTENDED TO BE
SECRET!
Firstly, why the capitals again? Secondly, I would
like to know why so many skeptics (including as it
would seem, Donald Morgan) take words like 'always',
'never', 'all' etc so literally. If I said "I always
eat dinner at around 6pm", I'm sure Morgan could trace
an instance where I ate dinner at 4.30pm or 7.30pm,
but he could hardly classify me as a hypocritical and
malignant liar for saying that I always eat dinner at
around 6pm. It is the nature of language to use
hyperbole, and Jesus made use of hyperbole often - a
typical Rabinnic thing to do! As J.P. Holding has
written1:
One particular type of verse skeptics like to tear at
is that which uses the word "all" or some form of it.
Any Joe on the street would recognize a statement
like, "Everybody in the world likes ice cream," or,
"I'm putting all I have into it" as an idiomatic
statement indicating strong feeling or considerable
(but not exclusive) weight. But no, the Bible is not
allowed to do that. If the Bible says "All the kings
of the world came to Solomon for his wisdom," then by
golly, that means that the Bible says that even King
Nxetchthan from the Yucatan paddled over for a
look-see.
If Morgan still disagrees, I'd like for him to explain
why, if he is such a paragon of preciseness when it
comes to language, he identifies Matthew 13:58 and
Mark 6:5 as verses where Jesus was unable to perform
any miracles, when Matthew 13:58 refers specifically
to Jesus not performing many miracles, and Mark 6:5
refers specifically to Jesus laying his hands on a few
sick people and healing them?
Even considering that, Morgan has committed the
fallacy of equivocation in this argument, because the
crux comes when he argues the following in order to
prove that Jesus didn't always speak secretly:
He taught on the "mount" (5:1-7:28), by the sea
(Matthew 13:1), on the plain (Luke 6:17-49), and in
other places. To his disciples he said: "To you has
been given the SECRET of the kingdom of God, but for
those outside everything is in parables; so THAT THEY
MAY INDEED SEE BUT NOT PERCEIVE, AND INDEED HEAR BUT
NOT UNDERSTAND: LEST THEY SHOULD TURN ABOUT AND BE
FORGIVEN" (Mark 4:11-12).
Firstly, Jesus' teaching on the mount, by the sea and
on the plain are irrelevant because of the nature of
language. If a school teacher said "I have always
taught in the classrooms or at the portables, where
all the students come together", yet was discovered to
have taught one class in the school gym and another in
the school auditorium, it wouldn't make the teacher a
pernicious liar, because the teacher's statement may
make much more sense with the word 'wherever' rather
than 'where'. This would make the statement "I have
always taught in the classrooms or at the portables,
wherever all the students come together". Could Jesus'
statement not be more easily understood as "I always
taught in synagogues or at the temple, wherever all
the Jews come together"? Even if it can't, I've
already pointed out the nature of language and the
fact that words like 'always', 'all' or 'never' cannot
always be taken literally - especially when Rabbinic
hyperbole is common in Jesus' statements!
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the example that Morgan
brings up as evidence of Jesus' "dishonesty", namely,
this argument:
To his disciples he said: "To you has been given the
SECRET of the kingdom of God, but for those outside
everything is in parables; so THAT THEY MAY INDEED SEE
BUT NOT PERCEIVE, AND INDEED HEAR BUT NOT UNDERSTAND:
LEST THEY SHOULD TURN ABOUT AND BE FORGIVEN" (Mark
4:11-12).
As I mentioned earlier, this argument commits the
fallacy of equivocation, because with the example of
John 18:20, Jesus is referring to teaching out in the
open, not necessarily teaching without ambiguity, but
in the example of Mark 4:11-12, Jesus is talking about
teaching with ambiguity. It is quite simple to teach
out in the open, yet speak in hard to understand
parables. I could make speeches in public places, yet
speak in such a way that it is difficult to understand
what I mean. So, Jesus is not lying here, because not
speaking in secret is very different from speaking
with secretive language.
So, of all the examples of "hypocrisy" Morgan uses,
the only one that uses any sort of rationality is his
argument regarding John 7:2-10, but even that one is
able to be resolved.
Conclusion: The definition of hypocrisy, as mentioned
earlier, is "the act of pretending to have a character
or beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not
possess." Morgan's arguments that Jesus was a
hypocrite are often based upon precepts or commands
that Jesus himself did not claim to necessarily have
to follow, or they are based upon misreading,
misrepresenting or poorly interpreting verses of the
Bible. His devious scheme of not quoting the
references he gave in the "Faith and Belief" section,
his gratuitous capitalisation of words and his
misleading of the reader into thinking that Mark 7:27
and Matthew 15:21-28 are different situations are, I
suppose, to be expected given the circumstances -
being that there is no evidence that Jesus was a
hypocrite.
Notes:
1. Holding, J.P. Answering a List of Biblical
Contradictions,
http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AALOBC.html
|
|
