Family Feud

I've heard it said that the problems with families today is that they don't know Jesus. With that in mind, I decided to look up Jesus's teachings on the family. Luke and Matthew both have some memories on that subject to share with us. In Luke 12:51-53, Jesus says:

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Are those words not a bit harsh! Was Luke hitting the bottle on that day? Did he write things down incorrectly? Well, perhaps not, for Matthew remembers the same thing. According to Matthew 10:34-36, Jesus said:

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Different words but the same meaning. So then, how am I to follow the word of Jesus? What division is Jesus talking about? Is this a mathematical problem or is he dividing families? If it's families that will be against each other, could we just play something nice like touch football? Or maybe team Monopoly? How about dueling banjos?

Must I always have three against two? Could I not even the sides up by inviting another into this fracas? What do I do if my family consists of more or less than five? What about the father-in-law? Why is it that he is apparently allowed to escape unscathed? Can he not join in to make it three against three? Or does Jesus consider him untouchable? Can I maybe invite some other in-laws? Could I perhaps get some cousins to wait on the sidelines in case someone needs a bathroom break? Am I allowed wildcard players?

What about the mother? Why has she been given the worst deal? She has not only the daughter against her, but the mother-in-law as well! Must the rivalry always be divided along the lines of gender? Jesus has dictated that it shall be females against females and males against males, but are we allowed to make deals and trade players from time to time? Can we have some days when it's father against daughter and mother against son? Could the mother-in-law sort of play the field, helping the underdog?

But what about this sword that Jesus will send? Will it be one of those soft, styrofoam ones? Or will it be a rapier or a sabre, or possibly something heavy like a longsword? Should it be the latter and it prove too heavy for someone like the mother-in-law, can I use a designated hitter?

Couldn't someone get hurt if it's a real sword? Is that the whole idea? Luke seems to remember Jesus saying something else, in Chapter 14 Verse 26:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Won't all that hatred ruin the Monopoly game? How can I make a deal about Park Place with someone who hates me? Must I hate everyone at the same time? Can I even things out by loathing one and therefore just being piqued with another? Do I have to hate the players on my own team too? How can I plan any strategy with my daughter-teammate if I know she hates me? Maybe she's planning some strategy against me? And what if I hate my son and take a sword to him? Will that be child abuse or is there a religious exemption? Is Jesus saying that spanking is cool? How is a victor determined? Is it last man standing? Are those killed in these family feuds dictated by Jesus granted automatic entry into heaven?

And what about hating my own life? Must I hate myself, or just the life? Must I hate it to the point of taking it? If we all want to take our lives to be Jesus's disciples, then isn't this advocating mass suicide of the whole human race? Is this how it's all supposed to end? Is this the only way to be a disciple of Jesus? Were Peter and all those others full of hatred too? Is that why they couldn't agree and allowed Paul (Saul) to take over? But if I hate my life, why would I care if it's saved by Jesus? Is this not a paradox?

The Many Last Words of Jesus

Last words of famous people are always important. Look at Humphrey Bogart's dying statement of, "I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis." Or Winston Churchill's, "I'm bored with it all." And of course Pancho Villa, who left us with the words, "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something."

But throughout history, whose last words could be more important than those of Jesus Christ? With that in mind, I sought His last words in the New Testament. The first book of the New Testament is Matthew. Chapter 37 of Matthew speaks of the Crucifixion, and in verse 46 we read:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Fortunately Matthew was kind of enough to take the time to translate. However, this was rather disappointing. Jesus died on the cross with no parting advice - just a question to God. Matthew doesn't even tell us if God answered. I think it would have been pretty interesting to hear God's reply. I mean, if He forsake His Son, I'd like to know what to do so He doesn't forsake me too!

The next verses go on about some people getting confused and thinking Jesus was calling for Elias. Were these English speakers who couldn't understand the native language? Why couldn't Matthew translate for them too?

Next I went to Mark. Mark got to the Crucifixion in only 15 chapters. Mark 15:34 says the same thing as Matthew 37:46. Unfortunately, Mark doesn't pay attention for an answer from God either. He also goes on about the same fools waiting for Elias to come to Jesus. Why were neither of these guys listening for God's reply?

The next book is Luke. Luke 23:46 tells us:

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Now what the hell is going on here? Luke heard something altogether different! Why didn't Luke hear Jesus's question about being forsaken? And why didn't Luke talk about the confused English speakers? Hadn't Luke been paying attention? Was he just making things up as he went along? Exactly how credible was the word of Luke? What about all the cool stuff that Linus says each year in "The Peanuts Christmas Special"? Things that we all know, like:

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

That's from Luke Chapter 2, and none of the other gospels have that in them. Mark and John don't mention the birth of Jesus at all, and Matthew just gives it one line (Matthew 1:25) after getting bogged down with all the "begats." So was Luke just daydreaming during the First Christmas? Did he just made up a bunch of things later for us to use in holiday TV specials? Did he make up things about The Crucifixion too?

I turned to John to get some confirmation. John 19:30 says,

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Where was John standing to hear only that? No mention of Jesus speaking to God at all - just His telling us that it's finished. Does this mean that John has no credibility either? What about John 3:16, where John tells us:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

People have made fortunes putting this on signs and billboards from New Jersey to California, but now the credibility of the guy who wrote is in question. What if John only made that up? Think of all the empty signs and lost income if that gets out!

On the other hand, how do I know that I can trust Mark and Matthew? Just because their stories match doesn't mean that they're right. Maybe they didn't make it to The Crucifixion in time. Maybe they just collaborated on some fabrication together. Or maybe one wasn't paying attention. Maybe he fell asleep, or was flirting with some girls or something. So maybe he copied off of the other.

The big question here is which gospel do we believe? Should I doubt all four until I know the truth? With something so important, couldn't they have sat down together and made sure their stories matched? Were they in some kind of competition, or what? Was creative writing a big thing back then? Did they get a prize for the most original story? Couldn't someone have sat down and edited this later? Isn't it an editor's job to find errors? God was writing back in Genesis; why didn't He edit out the errors in the gospels?