Is Jesus Sarcastic?

Was Jesus ever sarcastic? Did Jesus ever use satire? The most obvious use of sarcasm and satire is in Jesus' treatment of the Pharisees and the religious leaders of the day. Jesus likened them to dirty dishes, unmarked graves, blind guides, a beautiful whitewashed tomb that contains a carcass, and a brood of vipers. Jesus says that Pharisees strain out a gnat (so that they don't accidentally eat an unclean thing) but they swallow a camel; they decorate the tombs of the prophets that they killed; they convert someone only to make them twice the child of hell; they show off their huge prayer phylacteries, long robes and tassels; they take impressive places of honor while devouring the widow's home; they love the praise of men more than the praise of God. Jesus even told them that prostitutes are entering the kingdom of heaven before them.

Some of Jesus' parable contain satirical jabs at the Pharisees and other religious leaders. In the parable of the Good Samaritan a heretical half-breed is pictured as more righteous than a priest and temple worker. In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax-collector the tax-collector goes home justified because he has a repentant heart. In the parable of the Prodigal Son the older son, who clearly represents the Pharisees, is left outside of his farther's home fuming with self-righteous jealousy.

I also sense a bit of sarcasm when Jesus compliments the Pharisees. If you say to someone, "Must be nice to be perfect!" They will probably be offended. It seems that Jesus did something similar after the Pharisees chided him for eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors. Jesus replied, "It's not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick." In another place Jesus says that a person's righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. This is a classic back-handed compliment that would've irritated the Pharisees. I would love to have seen their faces.

Most of Jesus's satirical criticisms are reserved for the self-righteous and the unrepentant. On one occasion he made an offensive remark to test the faith of a Canaanite woman. After she asked for his help he compared her to a dog. She took the insult and persisted. Jesus commended her for her great faith.

Jesus may be using a hint of sarcasm when he refers to himself by his favorite title. The Son of Man is a title that is first seen in the book of Daniel. The Son of Man clearly refers to the glorified Messiah. While the Pharisees would stone Jesus if he publicly said that he was the Son of God he could get away with saying that he was the Son of Man. This must have irritated the Pharisees as they understood the Messianic implications of the phrase. Jesus also played on words with his various I AM statements. He was especially bold when he declared, "Before Abraham was born, I AM." Here, Jesus was clearly identifying himself as God who had revealed himself to Moses as the I AM.

What lessons are we to take from this?

1. Jesus is not a wimp

As children we learn of a very gentle Jesus. We picture him embracing children and cradling a little lamb in his arms. Jesus was certainly loving and gentle with his flock. As children grow older it's also important that they see Jesus as a warrior and as a lion who will defend his flock. That love prompts him to lash out, and to expose the wolves who wear sheep's clothing.

2 Audience matters

Jesus knew who needed to be knocked down with the law and he knew who needed to be uplifted by the gospel. Jesus could see self-righteous hearts and repentant hearts. Jesus knew how to afflict the comfortable and how to comfort the afflicted.

3. Jesus's sarcastic remarks and satire came from a place of love

After Jesus condemns the pharisees he weeps for them. He says that he longed to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks. Jesus tears them to pieces so that they might see the error of their ways and repent. This is love's last resort.

4. Jesus is shrewd and intelligent

Jesus' knowledge of the scriptures and his audience was immense, deep and obviously divine. His retorts, parables, and questions silenced his critics. He was able to say things that were forbidden to say without really saying them.

5. Jesus was not afraid of causing offense

Jesus sought humility and repentance. Throughout the Scriptures the prophets preached repentance and the need for a new heart. This is offensive. Today's Christianity is scared to offend. If Christians are afraid to offend then they will be afraid to share the Word of God.

6. Satire is useful for exposing hypocrisy

Jesus makes the Pharisees look ridiculous by simply placing a mirror before them. The hypocrite brings the satire upon themselves. Satire is an effective way to expose hypocrisy.

What will I tell her?

No. I won't set her up to be a loser. I won't tell her that things are impossible. I don't want my daughter seeing herself as a victim. I don't want her to blame all of her problems on others or on the "patriarchy." I don't want her to be hateful.

I also don't think that she is at a disadvantage. I do not think her culture values her less. This is 2017, not 1947. The make up of college students is 57% female. My daughters are more likely to attend college than my son. If she gets harassed or becomes a victim of a sexist remark I want her self-respect, solid convictions and confidence to send those cockroaches scurrying away. I want her to be a warrior, even if the deck is stacked up against her, not a whiner who pouts in the corner because she didn't get her way.

I also don't want a German car company lecturing the United States over issues related to gender. Audi has set records in its sales growth in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia ranks 2nd in growth in Audi sales among countries in the Middle East. I expect that within the next year Audi will boycott Saudi Arabia until women can freely drive cars. I'm sure that their principles will trump their desire for sales.

Feminism's Final Wave

A few years ago I wondered if feminism was dead. The transgender movement seemed poised to inherit feminism's cultural waves. Girls would have to step off the high school softball field as transitioning male to female athletes stepped up to the plate with their biological advantages. Last year a transgender student made it to the Alaska state track meet which means that the young lady that finished behind him could not compete. There is a social justice pecking order and feminists are beginning to find themselves left behind in the world of social justice grievances. The feminist movement looks old, white and hopelessly binary. How can such a movement survive when Facebook allows you to choose from over 50 genders?

But wait, not so fast! A well-organized army of feminists flooded Washington D.C. like a pink tsunami. The choice of head-wear at the Women's March included hats that resembled reproductive organs and hijabs. For those who do not see the world through the social justice warrior lens the presence of hijabs alongside "pussyhats" seemed bizarre and out of place. While pro-life feminists were dis-invited from the march, Muslim feminists were readily accepted. Observers might scratch their heads as they consider the anti-abortion stance of most Muslims as well as the rights and status of women in Islamic societies. Saudi Arabia is the beating heart of Islam and also happens to be a place where women are publicly segregated and something as mundane as driving a car is frowned upon if you are female. Controversy erupted when Saudi women participated in the Olympics. An Islamic cleric likened the athletes to prostitutes.

The most noticeable leader of the Women's March was a Muslim woman who lamented the fact that sharia law was not welcome in the United States. Her name is Linda Sarsour, a daughter of Palestinian immigrants and an activist who pushed for NYC public schools to close for certain Islamic holidays. Linda was invited to be a leader of the event. I assumed that those who invited her to the march were white women who didn't want the march to be about white women. After doing a quick Wikipedia search on the organizers my suspicions were confirmed. The white organizers of the march were quick to hide behind minority individuals.

All of this points to a new social justice movement known as intersectionality. Feminists have adapted intersectionality as a way to survive the ever-evolving world of social justice causes. Intersectionality is a term used to describe the way that various social advantages or disadvantages overlap. The following video is an instructional piece that uses pizza to describe intersectionality:

The problem with your typical feminists is that they look super privileged when they walk about with their $4 Starbucks and their homemade, hand-knitted "pussyhats." According to the video they are nothing but "cheese pizzas." Feminism is thus allowed to survive as long as it checks its historical privilege and couples itself with other victim groups (or other pizzas in their fight against a world run by burgers). The Women's March, while predominantly white, was careful to include various minority, trans, and lesbian groups. Without intersctionality the feminist movement would be cannibalized or co-opted by those who are higher up on the social justice scale.

Social justice warriors also breathed life into feminism because it is politically useful. They can build a case against President Trump based upon sexism and Islamophobia. Trump is not as vulnerable on issues related to race, homosexuality and transgenderism. Currently, victimizing Muslims and women is politically expedient, but that could all change with a shift of the political winds. By the way, whatever happened to the BLM movement?

What intersectionality gives it can also take away. Beneath the social justice veneer of solidarity is paranoia and infighting. There are signs that social justice warriors are beginning to turn their weapons on each other (cheese pizza vs. deluxe pizza). A cannibal can survive with other cannibals as long as they're not competing for resources. If feminists are not careful they may find themselves next on the dinner plate as their social scale tips from victim to privileged.

Atheists, Unicorns and Narwhals

"God is a myth like the unicorn." 

"Prove to me that an invisible pink unicorn does not exist and I'll prove to you that there is no God." 

The unicorn is a common symbol for atheists. Atheists love to compare God to unicorns.

In his book, Illogical Atheism, Bo Jinn exposes the fallacious thinking of atheism. Bo includes a memorable discussion on the unicorn as it relates to the discussion on God:

"There is a theory that the myth of the unicorn first came about when ancient nomadic people of Europe discovered strange objects washed up along their shores. These objects were long, pointed conical and had the weight and texture of bone. So, the nomads inferred that they must have been the horn of some kind of animal. The only animals they knew of with horns were land animals like the antelope and the elk. But these horns looked like they could not belong to either. The ancient nomads would have proposed the best possible explanation for what animal the horns might have belonged to, by observing their own surroundings and reasoning things out. So, they concluded that the best explanation was that the horns must have belonged to a large and powerful species of horse that roamed some far away land. If one considers the position of the ancient nomad, one might appreciate that this is hardly an illogical explanation. A horse was a land creature, it was large enough and strong enough to bear the weight of the big horn and since the horns were found washed up on shore one may assume that these large horses died at sea, their bodies were devoured by sea beasts and that the horns floated to their coastal waters. And that is how the myth of the unicorn came about." (Bo Jinn, Illogical Atheism: Book II, chapter 5).

The horn of course is the tusk of a narwhal.

Bo uses this story to make the following two points:

First: The unicorn is not a random concoction of some imaginative ancient person but rather a possible explanation for the horn. 

Let's add to this scenario. Suppose another nomad comes along and disputes the idea that the horn came from a horse-like creature. Perhaps this nomad has some additional evidence that suggests that the horn comes from a sea creature. Maybe he's seen a walrus and thinks that the horn is a tusk that came from a similar type of animal. Let's imagine a few more nomads arrive and argue about the origin of the horn. Most of them agree that it came from a creature that died at sea. They may not know that the horn is actually the tusk of a narwhal but the nomads have correctly concluded that it came from an animal that died at sea.

Now compare the nomads to practitioners of different religions. Does the existence of many religions indicate that there is no God as some atheists presume? Hardly. The many religions of this world are a testament to the fact that God has left knowledge about himself in the natural world. More evidence, however, is needed. Christians would point to the additional evidence in the prophetic scriptures which center around God's Son who became one of us poor nomads and then resurrected from the dead.

Second: The unicorn hypothesis was not refuted by saying that there was a lack of evidence but by new evidence that the horn was a tusk that belonged to a narwhal. Atheists have yet to find their narwhal!

When an atheists refutes a theistic position they will often claim that they are doing so due to a lack of evidence. They will go so far as to say that there is no evidence at all and that faith in God is blind and tantamount to believing in an invisible pink unicorn. The problem for the atheist is that while they claim that God is not the explanation to the universe they are unable replace God with a substitute explanation.

Bo Jinn adds to the nomad scenario by proposing the arrival of another nomad who tells the others that they are all wrong. This nomad claims that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the horn came from an animal. Naturally, the other nomads press him for an alternative explanation of the horn. The dissenting nomad offers one of two explanations: 1. "The horn popped out of nothing." 2. "The horn has always been there." Obviously, this nomad would not be taken seriously by the others. What he's advocating is unreasonable and more incredible than a miracle.

Atheists have a similar problem. Their explanation for the universe is that it has either always been there or it popped out of nothing. For this reason, out of all the belief systems in the world atheism is the most illogical. Atheism is also the most exclusive of all faiths in that it shares nothing in common with other views. The nomads could all agree that that the horn came from an animal. Most religions agree that there is at least one higher power.

If God is not the proper explanation to the universe then what is? The atheist should not ridicule the notion of God and offer nothing to replace it. The atheist ought to admit that they simply don't want there to be a god. As Thomas Nagel put it, "I don't want the universe to be like that." At the heart of atheism is not evidence or the lack thereof but a stubborn and rebellious heart.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." - Psalm 14:1

Intricacies of Psalm 23

Yahweh

-Yahweh (LORD) is the first word of the psalm

-Yahweh (LORD) is mentioned twice in the psalm, once at the beginning and once at the end.

- The center of the psalm is the phrase "for you are with me." There are 26 words before the phrase and 26 words after the phrase. 26 is the numerical value of the Hebrew word for Yahweh. The four consonants are also the numbers 10, 5, 6 and 5. 

Chiasm

A. Going home with the Lord. No lack

      B. Leads me

           C. Still Waters, Green Pastures

                D. Restores my Soul

                     E. Shadow of Death

                          F. No Fear

                              G. You are with me, Your Rod, Your Staff

                          F. Comfort

                     E. Presence of my Enemies

                 D. Prepares a Table 

           C. Oil, Cup

      B. Follow me

A. At home with the Lord. Forever

A Chiasm of 7 Verbs

He Shepherds

     He Makes Me

          He Leads Me

               He Restores

          He Leads

     He Prepares

He Anoints

He and You

Notice how at the climax of the psalm the pronouns for God switch from he to you. Now that the author knows that God is with him the psalm becomes more personal. He's not being directed rather he is being doted upon by God. It's almost as if the valley of the shadow of death caused him to turn toward his shepherd. Notice also the triple "you" in the climactic phrase. God is often described in threes throughout the Scripture. 

Echoes of Exodus

"The LORD is my shepherd, I lack nothing."

     Exodus 16:18 - Everyone had gathered (manna and quail) just as much as they needed.. 

     "I lack nothing" is the same word as "as much as they needed."

"He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters."

     Exodus 15:13 - In your strength you will guide them to your holy dwelling. 

     "He leads me..." is the same word as "you will guide."

     Exodus 15:23 - "Bitter Waters" ME MARAH

     Numbers 20:13 - "Troubled Waters ME MERIBAH 

     Psalm 23:2 - "Quiet Waters" ME MENIHOT

"He restores my soul"

     Exodus 14 - The word for "restored" is used to describe how God restored the waters of the Red          Sea.

"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil. For you are with me. Your rod and your staff they comfort me. 

    Israel travels through the Red Sea with a wall of water on the right and on the left. Moses stretched     his staff out over the Sea to split it. 

"Surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life."

     Exodus 14:19-20 - The Angel of the LORD, and the pillar of cloud moved behind Israel as                  they crossed the sea. 

"And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever

     Exodus 13 - Describes Israel's condition in Egypt as living in the House of Slavery

Psalm 23 in the Broader Context of the Psalms

- Psalms 15-24 are often taken as a group. 

- A chiasm is evident

A. Psalm 15: Who may live on God's holy mountain?

     B. Psalm 16: Trust

          C. Psalm 17: Cry for help

               D. Psalm 18: God Delivers

                    E. Psalm 19 - Creation Praises God

               D. Psalm 20-21: God Delivers

          C. Psalm 22: Cry for help

     B. Psalm 23: Trust

A. Psalm 24: Who may live on God's holy mountain?

Psalm 23 and Psalm 16 are in parallel positions. They also have similarities.

     Psalm 16:1 - Yahweh is my Lord

     Psalm 23:1 - Yahweh is my Shepherd

     

     Psalm 16:5 - "You alone are my portion and cup"

     Psalm 23:5 - "My cup overflows"

     

     Psalm 16:10 - "You will not abandon me to the grave (Sheol)"

     Psalm 23:4 - "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death."

     Psalm 16:11 - "Eternal pleasures at your right hand."

     Psalm 23:6 - "I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever."

     Psalm 16:11 - "Path of life"

     Psalm 23:3 - "Paths of righteousness"

Stop Saying that You Believe in Science

"I Believe in Science!"

'

The statement I believe in science is not a scientific statement. When a person says that they believe in science what they really mean is that they believe in philosophical materialism. Philosophical materialism is the belief that matter is all that exists. This is not scientific but speculative. Since the dogma of philosophical materialism is equated to science it often goes unquestioned and unexamined. Philosophical materialism reduces everything to matter rendering things like thought, memory, values, free-will, freedom, equality, good, evil, morality, meaning, and love as illusionary possessions of a bunch of duped robots. Philosophical materialism is existentially bankrupt, narrow-minded and woefully inadequate in its ability to explain the human experience.

The statement I believe in science is used as a personal attack to cut off debate or to silence critics. The statement is often employed as an ad hominem that paints the other person as ignorant and uneducated. If I watched a video of Bill Nye rambling about abortion and I said that he was wrong because he's a clown, I would be committing an ad hominem logical fallacy. Bill Nye being a clown has nothing to do with the truthfulness of his statements on abortion.

The statement I believe in science is committing a categorical error. When we look at the context of how this phrase is used, belief in science is often juxtaposed to belief in God. Science and God are in two completely different categories. The former describes nature and the latter explains why nature is there or why we are even able to describe nature (science!). Responding to belief in God with the statement I believe in science is like saying I don't believe in Picasso, I believe in art!

The statement I believe in science is self-refuting when used in an epistemological sense. Scientism is a relatively new term which refers to the belief that science is the only source of knowledge. While philosophical materialism limits the state of being (ontology) scientism places limits on knowing (epistemology). Scientism is self-refuting because scientism cannot be verified scientifically! Scientism can also be turned against science since many of the assumptions behind science cannot be proven scientifically.

The statement I believe in science is really a belief in the infallibility of  the scientific establishment. This is ironic since much of history's scientific heroes were people who went against the scientific establishment by questioning their assumptions. Today's science has become dogmatic and authoritative. I guess when you ignore the history of science you are doomed to repeat it.

A Church that Reads the Koran

A few years ago Luther's church in Germany began their Reformation service with a call to worship from an Islamic minister. A lone German woman protested from the balcony. Her testimony is in the video clip below:

The disease has apparently spread to Scotland where an Episcopalian cathedral celebrated the Epiphany of Jesus with a reading from the Koran. The lector read about the annunciation of Jesus from the Koran in Arabic. Within the Koran's annunciation of Jesus is the anti-Christian teaching that Allah (God) could not have a son. The Koran also describes Jesus talking as an infant, a tradition which Mohammad inherited from the Gnostic sects that inhabited the once diverse area of Arabia.

This church is not interested in the teachings of Christ but in cultural acceptance. Their goal is more political than spiritual and it spills over into their sermons. An excerpt from the Christmas sermon likened King Herod to Donald Trump:

But Herod didn’t manage to kill the Christ child, didn’t manage to kill hope, didn’t manage to wipe out love either.And neither will Trump. Nor Putin. Nor any of the putative far right big men (or big women, that’s not impossible either) be able to wipe love out either.Love always wins.

The midnight mass sermon also began with a mention of Trump and Brexit.

I believe that people of Europe have three options: Christianity, Islam, or nationalism. I think that nationalism will check the Islamic surge and that it will be godless and brutal. Christians have stepped aside and in their eagerness to be agreeable to secularism they have rendered themselves irrelevant in Europe. Their desire to be acceptable will only allow evil to flourish. 

Perhaps it won't be nationalism. Perhaps apathy and inertia will allow Islam to finally take over Europe. If Europe becomes an Islamic continent the culture, languages, and rich history of Europe will disappear under Islam's heavy yoke. The cathedrals will become mosques and diversity will be a thing of the past. 

I think about the Hagia Sophia, that beautiful domed mosque in Istanbul. Was it built by Muslims? Was it designed to be a mosque? 

No, it was a church, a product of Christianity which was converted into a mosque in 1453. The dome architecture of Islamic mosques is not original to Islam but to an ancient, eastern Christianity which today is but a shadow of its former self and a warning to what will happen to a Christianity that compromises.