Did Jesus lie to his disciples in John 7?
It says that he told them he wasn't going, and then he sneaks in to the feast anyway... To me that's a blatant lie, am I missing something?
Posted May 20, 2014, 7:59 AM UTC
561
I mostly agree with u/unsubinator. "My time has not yet fully come" seems to imply a sense that he's not going in the way they want him to.
In any case, I do think you are missing something. There is no lie. My translation says, "I’m not going up to the festival yet." He is going to the festival... Just, not yet. It's worth nothing that there's a footnote: apparently "yet" is missing from some transcripts. But even if it does not belong, it is clearly implied by the following verse or two:
verse 8- "Go ahead. I'm not going [now], because it's not time [yet]."
verse 9- He stayed in Galilee.
verse 10- His brothers went to the festival. Some time after this, he went as well.
It's apparent that he didn't go yet. He said go ahead. He stayed in Galilee while they apparently left. Then later on he left as well. How much later is unknown... Obviously not that much later, because the festival is still going on. But he didn't go with them when they said, "Let's go." He said, "It's not time, go ahead." They did. Then, later, he went himself.
5
verse 8- "Go ahead. I'm not going [now], because it's not time [yet]."
verse 9- He stayed in Galilee.
verse 10- His brothers went to the festival. Some time after this, he went as well.
Close.
verse 8 - "Go ahead. I'm not going [now], because it's not the right time [yet]."
verse 9 - He stayed in Galilee.
verse 10- His brothers went to the festival. Some time after this, he wentsnuck in as well.
0
I wasn't quoting, obviously. And neither are you.
What does it matter if it wasn't "the time" or "the right time" (which basically mean the same thing?)? What does it matter if he "went," or "snuck," or even "followed?" The point is he didn't go, they left, then he went.
I'm not getting into a debate about whether or not it was a sneaky thing for him to do. I'm just saying he clearly didn't lie to them.
2
What does it matter if he "went," or "snuck," or even "followed?"
He literally went in secret, after stating that he would not go at all. You are simply asserting he intentionally misled them, while using verbiage that wasn't literally false, because despite Jesus intent to mislead them (as shown by his sneaking in later), they somehow should have assumed that he was being deceptive by meaning "yet". Seems to be the very definition of a lie to me. If you don't think it's relevant, then why are you posting on the thread?
-1
I just don't think it's half as insidious as you make it out to be.
1
Jesus is talking about 2 different "feasts" in John 7:8, He's making reference to His crucifixion/resurrection/ascension in the second. The reference to His time not yet having come makes no sense in context of the immediate feast.
2
It is clearly the same feast:
Therefore Jesus told them, "My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come." After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.
John 7:6-10
It states "he went also", and makes no mention of some other feast. It is the feast that his brothers went to.
2
No, it is clearly not the same feast. The lead in of 6-7 makes literally no sense if He's talking about that immediate feast. Only in verse 8 of the section you quote is there another feast in view.
1
To quote 6-7 as well as 8....
It is clearly the same feast:
herefore Jesus told them, "My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come." After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.
John 7:6-10
It states "he went also", and makes no mention of some other feast. It is the feast that his brothers went to.
2
It states "he went also", and makes no mention of some other feast. It is the feast that his brothers went to.
I'm NOT arguing that. Why do you think I'm arguing that?.
I'm saying that He's talking about 2 different things in 6-8. That much could not be clearer. The second "feast" in v8 is not a "feast" in the same vain as the celebration they attended, but His Crucifixion/Resurrection/Ascension. That's the only sense in which "my time has not yet come" makes sense.
Jesus spoke several things to the apostles that they could only understand in retrospect. This was one.
0
[deleted]
1
I'm sure the immutable God changed his mind about going to the festival after saying he would not go to the festival.
Or Jesus meant, "I am not going to the festival in public as a Messiah claimant. However, I will go to the festival in secret and skulk around for awhile".
Bill Clinton learned a lot from Jesus.
1†
It seems that some of the scribes also noticed the problem, because some later manuscripts have the word 'yet' inserted (as in the KJV).
Another interesting fact about John 7 - Jesus seems to agree that he was born in Galilee. In verse 27, the people state that they know where he is from, and Jesus agrees. However, we learn from verse 41 and 42 that they believed he was born in Galilee. It seems odd that Jesus didn't correct them. It's almost as if the author of the gospel of John thought that Jesus was born in Galilee, and not Bethlehem.
1
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but grew up in Nazareth. Nazareth is located in Galilee...
1
Then why did he not say so? When he agreed that the people knew where he was from (vs 27), why did he not qualify that he was actually born in Bethlehem, and thus met the criteria for Micah 5:2?
There is no indication anywhere in John's gospel that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The only such information comes from the gospels of Luke and Matthew. John seems to know nothing about it.
1
I don't see your issue.
If someone asks me where I am from, I will tell them the town that I live in. I don't tell them the town that I was born in. That's not what they're asking me.
And why does John have to say anything about Jesus being born in Bethlehem? Your argument is from omission?
1
It's important in this case because the Jews were aware of a prophecy that stated that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (vs 42). They rejected Jesus as Messiah because they thought he was never associated with that town. But Jesus never corrected them. Why not? Why would he allow a misconception like that to continue?
It's not an argument from omission if the positive (the 'commission') is important and expected. Jesus allowed the Jewish leaders to reject his claim to Messiahship based on a misconception. Why did he never even attempt to rectify that? Why does John never mention Bethlehem? Why do none of the New Testament epistles mention Bethlehem? Paul spilled a great amount of ink attempting to prove that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Surely this point would have been important? Yet he seems to know nothing of Bethlehem.
For that matter, why are the only two birth narratives so wildly inconsistent? Aside from having Jesus born in Bethlehem of Joseph and Mary, every other detail is different. The two stories have absolutely nothing in common. They can't even agree on a date - Matthew has Jesus born prior to the death of Herod in 4 BC, Luke says that he was born during the census under Quirinius in 6 CE. Why the discrepancy?
It seems to me that Jesus was born in Galilee, as John 7 assumes. When that became a problem for the later Christian church, 'Matthew' and 'Luke' invented two completely different stories to try and show that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as required by Micah 5:2. In other words, they created mythology.
1
I think that u/Basilides is onto something here.
Jesus' brethren said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world."
What I think they were pressuring Jesus to do is what Jesus in fact did do at the Feast of Passover (John 12:12-13).
At that time Jesus did go to the feast as a Messianic claimant.
Behold, your king is coming,
sitting on an ass’s colt!
You were asking about chapter 7. Look at what John writes in the chapter immediately preceding; how, after the miraculous multiplication of fish and loaves, Jesus perceived that the crowds, "were about to come and take him by force to make him king." So that, "Jesus withdrew again to the hills by himself."
Now, reading chapters 6 and 7 as a unity, we see this tension between the mighty signs that Jesus' was doing, by which it might have been perceived that, Yes, Israel's Messiah had come!, and the disconnect between the people's Messianic expectation (shared even by Jesus' brethren) and the kind of Messiah that Jesus was intended to be.
My kingship is not of this world
So I think Basilides is at least partly right (right about not going to the feast as a Messianic claimant--not about Jesus skulking in secret). Jesus' brethren wanted Jesus to go to the feast to "show himself to the world". But Jesus answered, "My time is not yet come." (Note the echo of John 2:4, and John 7:30). This sort of language is frequent in John. Likewise, we read in Galatians that:
When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
So, waiting for "opportune moment", Jesus declined to attend the feast in a public capacity and instead went to attend the feast privately.
Do Jesus' words involve him in an act of deception? Surely it could be interpreted that way. It does seem as though Jesus wanted to leave his brethren with the impression that he wasn't going to the feast, period. All I can say (without parsing the Greek, and looking at old commentaries and glosses, etc...all of which I'm not really qualified to do, anyway) is that the second half of the sentence seems to qualify the first. That qualification leaves a number of possible understandings open. Especially, if Jesus' brethren were putting pressure on Jesus to go to Jerusalem and claim to be the Messiah openly, than Jesus' words ought to be interpreted with reference to the demand that was being put before him. That is, "No, I'm not going the feast publicly, for my time is not yet come." All the while, though, he might have known he would go to the feast later, alone, and privately.
This isn't just an interpretation of Jesus' words meant to let him off the hook. I think this interpretation follows naturally from what John says:
After his brethren had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.
EDIT: fixed spelling and link
1
That's classic apologistic reasoning. You ignore the facts then make up all kinds of undocumented speculation to rationalize your apologetics.
In a court of law, given the Bible as evidence, Jesus would be a convicted liar. He would also be convicted of numerous other crimes including donkey theft, destruction of a man's livelihood (pigs over a cliff) and willful destruction of public property among other crimes.
The 'sin free life' argument doesn't hold up. Jesus was an ordinary fellow that sinned as much as the next man, only Jesus thought he wasn't sinning because of his deluded mind.
1
You ignore the facts then make up all kinds of undocumented speculation
What facts did I ignore? What speculation?
I think it's speculation to assume that Jesus' brethren would have understood Jesus to be saying he was not going to attend the feast at all, considering that attendance at the Feast of Tabernacles was required for all able-bodied Jews with the means to make the journey.
The Feast of Tabernacles [was]one of the three feasts that all "native born” male Jews were commanded to participate in.
Jesus would obviously have been under an obligation to attend the feast and his brethren would have known this as well.
1
Here is another of Jesus' lies:
10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,
“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”
(Mark 4)
And then Jesus declared to the high priest...
“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. (John 18:20)
Is this a joke ? it's kinda funny !
Yea, it's definitely funny. Since you also find the bible funny, welcome to the dark side.
I find you funny and you'r logic . If you find the bible funny there is always place for bad humor, but i think you are funny and funny about you is that you don't even know how funny you are. :D
Thanks! No bigger compliment than being called logical!!
Seems we're in further agreement. The bible is funny, though generally in rather bad taste.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Jesus taught in public. "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you" implies that God revealed the truth within those parables to the disciples, but not to everyone. Jesus didn't withhold information from anyone. They simply did not understand the information.
No one disputes that. He also said something in secret. Despite his claim to the contrary.
Yes. By explaining the parables. In secret.
I think there's a different between keeping secrets from the world and simply telling things to people in private. I had a conversation with my wife today about upcoming plans and it was private (until now). But that doesn't we spoke in secret.
Revelation from God did not come from Jesus' explanation. Rather, it seems to be a prerequisite for it. But in any case, I don't think any of his explanations were secrets. The things he shared privately with his disciples was merely exposition of that which he spoke in public.
Jesus OTOH, never explained the secrets of the kingdom to the public....because they were secrets! "Secrets" is even the word he used!
And Jesus did not say that the disciples received the secrets of the kingdom from an entity other than Jesus. Furthermore, the disciples received no revelation from the Holy Spirit until Pentecost. That was after the Ascension.
"Secrets" is exactly what he called his explanations!
Jesus said that he was not going to speak the secrets in public. That's why the secrets of the kingdom as "secrets". Because they were secrets.
Exactly. He didn't withhold info, he merely obfuscated it so that people would be confused and accidentally end up in Hell.
Nice guy.
Unless you happen to be a fig tree.
And the disciples were not confused because....
....Jesus did not withhold information from the disciples as he did from the public.
He said something in secret.
He provided the "secret" information to a handful of people during a private dinner. Did you not read the quotes?
Yes... What secret information did he tell them in private?
The secret information of the kingdom.
(From just Luke, just during the "Last Supper"...)