Matthew 23:35

[Fenris]

Matthew 23 is basically one long tirade against the Pharisees. OK, I get that. Jesus doesn't like them. (Whether his description of them is historical is another matter, perhaps for another discussion.) Most of the chapter seems very over the top, he seems to be in quite the foul mood, but verse 35 is startling even in this context.

And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel...

He's blaming every murder in history on the Pharisees?! Going all the way back to Abel? Jews didn't even exist back then, we don't meet the first Jew (Abraham) until Genesis 11.

Where's the gentle "turn the other cheek" Jesus?

[RabbiKnife]

 

In the narrative, Jesus was setting up the standard of conduct for the church.  No, He doesn't seem to have much patience for the leaders of the Pharisees and their reliance on oral tradition.

The "turn the other cheek" comment was made directly in response to particularly insulting aspect of Roman military law, and was about as "anti-Zealot I'm not establishing a kingdom to overthrow the Roman government in occupation" as you could get.

More importantly, his actual accusation is that these were the descendants of those that had killed the prophets, from Abel to Zechariah.  Not every murder.  Just the murder of God's prophets.  Not from a Jewish ethnicity perspective, but from a "unrighteous claiming to be righteous and killing wrongly in the name of God" sort of folks.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Fenris]

More importantly, his actual accusation is that these were the descendants of those that had killed the prophets, from Abel to Zechariah.

Abel was not a prophet. Cain, who murdered Abel, has no living descendants.

Not every murder.  Just the murder of God's prophets.  Not from a Jewish ethnicity perspective, but from a "unrighteous claiming to be righteous and killing wrongly in the name of God" sort of folks.

I get that you're trying to generalize the statement. But it's not a general statement. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees..." is a statement made to specific people. And the Pharisees did not carry out any murders. So what's he on about?

[ProDeo]

Start of the chapter -  “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice."

Jesus is NOT against what the scribes and the Pharisees teach, in fact He agrees and tells the audience to do what the scribes and the Pharisees teach.

Directly followed by - For they preach, but do not practice.

That's the introduction of what follows in the whole chapter. Apparently the leaders of that time were a bunch of hypocrites.

Also note that the tone against the scribes and the Pharisees in previous chapters was a lot milder, through time Jesus has given them chances enough to repent.

[RabbiKnife]

More importantly, his actual accusation is that these were the descendants of those that had killed the prophets, from Abel to Zechariah.

Abel was not a prophet. Cain, who murdered Abel, has no living descendants.

Not every murder.  Just the murder of God's prophets.  Not from a Jewish ethnicity perspective, but from a "unrighteous claiming to be righteous and killing wrongly in the name of God" sort of folks.

I get that you're trying to generalize the statement. But it's not a general statement. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees..." is a statement made to specific people. And the Pharisees did not carry out any murders. So what's he on about?

I gave my understanding.  Don't know what else to say.  Sometimes a cigar is not a cigar.

Apparently Jesus thinks Abel was a prophet.  And apparently Jesus didn't say that the Pharisees would kill prophets and wise men and scourge others  in the future.  I think Stephen would fall cleanly into that category, along with the scourgings of John and Peter.   Who cares about Cain?  The text doesn't mention him.

[Fenris]

Jesus is NOT against what the scribes and the Pharisees teach

No, he's against them as people. Accusing them of the murder of every righteous person from Abel through Zachariah. All of which took place long before they lived. Which seems just bizarre to me.

Also note that the tone against the scribes and the Pharisees in previous chapters was a lot milder, through time Jesus has given them chances enough to repent.

If I were a cynical man, I'd think that it was their rejection of his claims that got him angry. If I were.

[Fenris]

I gave my understanding.  Don't know what else to say. 

I don't know. That the text is disturbing? I guess the book is inerrant to you, so it can't be troubling? But it is.

Apparently Jesus thinks Abel was a prophet. ....   Who cares about Cain?  The text doesn't mention him.

That Jesus is blaming the death of Abel on Jews of his generation, when Abel was killed long before there were any Jews in the world? That Cain, who killed Abel, has no living descendants anyway? It's weird and... well, doesn't make the book seem inerrant to me. But then I am not a Christian.

[RabbiKnife]

I gave my understanding.  Don't know what else to say. 

I don't know. That the text is disturbing? I guess the book is inerrant to you, so it can't be troubling? But it is.

Apparently Jesus thinks Abel was a prophet. ....   Who cares about Cain?  The text doesn't mention him.

That Jesus is blaming the death of Abel on Jews of his generation, when Abel was killed long before there were any Jews in the world? That Cain, who killed Abel, has no living descendants anyway? It's weird and... well, doesn't make the book seem inerrant to me. But then I am not a Christian.

I think the point is that if you kill one prophet in the future, which is what he said about the immediate office, the guilt is the same is if you had personally killed every prophet from Abel to Zach, like your Daddys did.  I also think the point is that those who oppose God are all equally sinners.

It isn't disturbing to me at all, and inerrancy isn't a factor in that consideration for me?

[ProDeo]

Jesus is NOT against what the scribes and the Pharisees teach

No, he's against them as people. Accusing them of the murder of every righteous person from Abel through Zachariah. All of which took place long before they lived. Which seems just bizarre to me.

Note the context -
29  “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous,
30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’

That's pretty self-righteous, on which Jesus responds. On the Abel issue, He is talking about the innocents that were murdered, not necessarily about prophets only.
 

Also note that the tone against the scribes and the Pharisees in previous chapters was a lot milder, through time Jesus has given them chances enough to repent.

If I were a cynical man, I'd think that it was their rejection of his claims that got him angry. If I were.

But you are not a cynical man 

John chapter 2 -
13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there.
15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade.”
17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

Seriously, the then current leadership wasn't a very good one allowing the temple to be changed into a market square.

[Fenris]

That's pretty self-righteous, on which Jesus responds.

So self righteousness is a crime akin to murder. Yeah, I'm not seeing it.

On the Abel issue, He is talking about the innocents that were murdered, not necessarily about prophets only.

  And the murders that took place 3000 years earlier were also the fault of the Pharisees, even though neither Pharisees nor Jews even existed at the time?

Seriously, the then current leadership wasn't a very good one allowing the temple to be changed into a market square.

I don't really get his beef here, how else are Jews from distant lands supposed to buy animals for sacrifice? But setting that aside, in what way does this implicate the Pharisees? They were lay teachers, not government officials. At the time of the story in question, Judea was a Roman province anyway. And if were talking about the Temple itself, it was run by Sadducees, of whom Jesus has little to say.

And how does that make Pharisees guilty of every murder going back to Abel? 

[Fenris]

I think the point is that if you kill one prophet in the future

But the Pharisees didn't kill any prophets, past present or future.

the guilt is the same is if you had personally killed every prophet from Abel to Zach, like your Daddys did.

Back to the Abel point. Nobody's "daddies" killed Abel. Cain killed Abel, and Cain has no living descendants.

I also think the point is that those who oppose God are all equally sinners.

The Pharisees haven't been accused of "opposing God", but of "hypocrisy".

It isn't disturbing to me at all

I see.

and inerrancy isn't a factor in that consideration for me?

Of course it is. You believe it's of divine origin.

[ProDeo]

And how does that make Pharisees guilty of every murder going back to Abel?

I don't pretend to understand why Jesus mentions Abel, but note verse 36 as an introduction to the next chapter, number 24.

36 - Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Jesus is talking about the "Day of the Lord" mentioned in the OT many times, the end of the house of Israel, the end of the theocracy and the real (big) diaspora (as prophesied in the OT) that happened after AD 70.

37 - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

I am afraid you are not going to like the message as the final judgement on the house of Israel with as absolute low point the murder of the prophet of all prophets, Jesus the Christ. The timing of the appearance of the Son of God was (is) no accident, exactly 40 years after He was murdered judgement came over Israel, the Day of the Lord.

In the next chapter 24 Jesus prophesied what was going to happen 40 years later.

I don't pretend to understand why God does punish the generation of AD 70 for all the sins of all generations of Israel but it is what the OT teaches. I remember a text you once quoted -

Amos 5 -
 13 “Hear, and testify against the house of Jacob,”
declares the Lord GOD, the God of hosts,
 14 “that on the day I punish Israel for his transgressions,
 I will punish the altars of Bethel,
and the horns of the altar shall be cut off
and fall to the ground.
 15  I will strike the winter house along with the summer house,
and the houses of ivory shall perish,
and the great houses  shall come to an end,”
declares the LORD.

[RabbiKnife]

I think the point is that if you kill one prophet in the future

But the Pharisees didn't kill any prophets, past present or future.

the guilt is the same is if you had personally killed every prophet from Abel to Zach, like your Daddys did.

Back to the Abel point. Nobody's "daddies" killed Abel. Cain killed Abel, and Cain has no living descendants.

I also think the point is that those who oppose God are all equally sinners.

The Pharisees haven't been accused of "opposing God", but of "hypocrisy".

It isn't disturbing to me at all

I see.

and inerrancy isn't a factor in that consideration for me?

Of course it is. You believe it's of divine origin.

They stoned Stephen whom Christians believe to be a prophet

[Fenris]

I don't pretend to understand why Jesus mentions Abel

Neither do it. It doesn't make any sense.

Jesus is talking about the "Day of the Lord" mentioned in the OT many times, the end of the house of Israel, the end of the theocracy and the real (big) diaspora (as prophesied in the OT) that happened after AD 70.

Didn't happen in that generation, there was no theocracy, and the " real (big) diaspora" didn't happen until the Bar Kochba rebellion 50 years later.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!

Which prophets?

I am afraid you are not going to like the message as the final judgement on the house of Israel with as absolute low point the murder of the prophet of all prophets, Jesus the Christ.

Or maybe you'll be offended at the idea that perhaps God's punishment was the for Jews worshipping a man as god?

I don't pretend to understand why God does punish the generation of AD 70 for all the sins of all generations of Israel but it is what the OT teaches.

The opposite, every generation and every individual is punished for it's own sin. Ezekiel 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

I remember a text you once quoted -

Amos 5 -

I don't recall quoting Amos 5. Regardless, this was already fulfilled in 586BCE.

[Fenris]

They stoned Stephen whom Christians believe to be a prophet

Ah. Well there we have it, then.