Did Jesus Lie to His Brothers?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Patti, a reader of Tough Questions Answered, asked the other day if Jesus lied to his brothers in John 7:8-10. She claims that an atheist pointed these verses out to her.

So, what’s going on here? Must we read these verses in John 7 as Jesus purposely deceiving his brothers? First, let’s look at the passage in question, starting at John 7:1:

After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life. 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.

In these verses, Jesus’ brothers are taunting him. They are urging him to go to the Feast and perform public miracles instead of avoiding Judea, where the Feast would be held. What was Jesus’ response to them?

Therefore Jesus told them, “The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time 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 yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come.” Having said this, he stayed in Galilee.

Jesus tells his brothers twice that ”the right time has not yet come.” He tells them to go to the Feast without him. What does Jesus do next?

However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. Now at the Feast the Jews were watching for him and asking, “Where is that man?” Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, “He is a good man.” Others replied, “No, he deceives the people.” But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews.

Here is where the alleged deception occurs. In verse 10, Jesus goes to the Feast after all, but in secret. Did Jesus ever publicly reveal himself at the Feast or did he remain at the Feast in secret?

Not until halfway through the Feast did Jesus go up to the temple courts and begin to teach. The Jews were amazed and asked, “How did this man get such learning without having studied?”

Jesus chose to publicly reveal himself halfway through the Feast, or about the fourth day. So, did he purposely try to deceive his brothers? I think not.

As is clear from the context of the passage, Jesus’ brothers were encouraging him to make a public spectacle of himself at the beginning of the Feast.

Jesus tells them, simply, that his timing for a public appearance at the Feast is not their timing. He arrives at the Feast in secret and he does not appear publicly until halfway through the Feast. Verse 14 pointedly refers to Jesus’ timing, a piece of information that would seem irrelevant if we did not know about Jesus’ conversation with his brothers.

There is simply no deception going on here. If Jesus were lying to his brothers, and did not want them to know he was going to the Feast, then why did he appear publicly in the middle of the Feast, where he could be sure his brothers would see and hear him preaching? That scenario does not make sense.

The straightforward reading of this text indicates that the author (John) is trying to contrast Jesus’ timing with his brothers’ taunting. In order to show that Jesus lied, one has to prove that Jesus told his brothers that he was not going to the Feast at all, and that interpretation of these verses is highly implausible.

Tags: Gospel of John, John 7:8-10

This entry was posted by Bill Pratt on Friday, November 18th, 2011 at 9:00 am and is filed under Difficult Bible Passages. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

About The Author

Bill Pratt

Comments

Pingback: Did Jesus Lie to His Brothers? « Coming World War 3 / One World Government
Jeff Borden

I’m a believer and think this passage is blurry at best. While you might contend that Jesus’ intent was not to deceive his brothers, the English translation of this account leads me to believe that his brothers were probably deceived. The way it reads, if Jesus were to answer me as this passage portrays, I would think he had no intention of showing for the feast. If he showed, and I saw him…I would think he had deceived me.
Todd

“I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come.”

“However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.”

Seems pretty clear cut to me. He said one thing, then did another.

Why didn’t he just hang out in Galilee until the time was right then show up; or tell his brothers he’d be there in a few days? Perhaps he needed to deceive them so he could go alone without them pointing him out to the crowd and asking him to do the wine miracle again. That way he could ascertain for himself when the time was right to reveal his presence. Regardless of intent, I think its clearly a deception.
http://aisforatheist5760.blogspot.com A is for Atheist

If Jesus was god, he would know that he was going to go to the feast later,and there was no need for him to mislead/lie to his brothers about it. He could have just said, “It is not time for me now, I will come a bit later.”–but he left that part out–on purpose. Since he is supposed to be god he could have been more clear about his intentions. Since he was not, this would be a deception. Secondly, let us take a portion of that passage in context, so that we can illustrate how nonsensical it is:

“For even his own brothers did not believe in him.”

As his mother is said to have been impregnated by god, it would make logical sense then that his mother and his brothers would believe him to be the “son of god”–but the bible reveals that this is not the case, as the above passage illustrates. Furthermore, there are other instances such as when his family claimed he was ““..out of his mind.” in Mark 3:20 which illustrate that they did not believe he was god. Jesus then goes on to rebuke his family by claiming that the crowd gathered around him was his real family–and not Mary and his siblings. Not very “god-like” behavior, and more importantly, if he truly was the son of god, then his mother especially would know this and pass that knowledge to his siblings–instead of saying he was “out of his mind.”

The bible reveals that Jesus not only spoke in parables, which is very confusing, but he was also secretive about certain things–such as miracles. The “Messianic Secret” in which Jesus “… charged them (disciples) that they should TELL NO MAN of him” (Mark 8:30), is an odd occurrence–if he were truly a god. The above passage is a universal–in which his disciples were told to say NOTHING to NOBODY. Logic tells me that if he truly was a god who loved all of his children, he would want as many of his children to know and be saved as possible. He would not want to keep his miracles a secret from them.

Now, some claim that the writer of the gospel of Mark based the “secret” on the tale of Odysseus–a Greek hero who would have been very familiar to the Gentile audience for which it was intended. In the tale of Odysseus, he had to disguise his identity to avoid his enemies on his return home, and the messianic secret could serve the same purpose for Jesus. The bible is based on the gods and the stories of many other groups who enslaved the Jews, and therefore, the parallel to Odysseus makes more sense than a god keeping his so-called “miracles” a secret from his “children.”
http://toughquestionsanswered.com Bill Pratt

Jeff,
There is no plausible explanation within the text as to why Jesus would want to mislead his brothers to think he was not coming to the feast at all, and then he shows up and publicly teaches where his brothers would surely see him. The whole scenario makes no sense, so I don’t see the blurriness you do.
http://toughquestionsanswered.com Bill Pratt

You need to explain, from the text, why Jesus would lie to his brothers, all the time knowing that they would bust him a few days later. Again, you need to do this from the text. All you’ve done is engage in speculation.
Jeff Borden

Let’s remove Jesus from the context as the Son of God and use a different scenario to illustrate, Bill.

Let’s say I represent Jesus’ brothers, only I will do so as the father to my son(s). Jesus will be represented by my son(s).

I suggest to my son that he should go to the school dance and show everyone his latest moves so he can be recognized as the awesome-dancer-super-cool-dude that he is. He responds to me in the following; “It’s not time for me to show them my moves, dad, the right time hasn’t come.” With that, my son returns to his room.

What is my logical thought? That my son isn’t going to the dance; this is the impression he leaves me with. Now… it just so happens that I am a chaperone at said dance and I head out to fulfill my obligations. Later, at the dance… I see my son son “popping and locking” over at the punch bowl. I’m aghast. He told me it wasn’t time for him to show at the dance and there he is???

No matter what his intent may have been, I feel deceived. While the technical merit of whether Jesus “lied” or not may be debated, the reality is there is a misdirection involved in this scene. If the account is overlaid in almost any other circumstance involving anyone but Jesus, I’m almost positive the other party (me or Jesus’ brothers) would feel they had been misled.
http://toughquestionsanswered.com Bill Pratt

It depends on how you interpret Jesus’ response to his brothers. If he said, “I am not going the Feast at all this year. My time has not come,” then I can see your point clearly.

However, if he said, “I am not going up to the feast with all of you, but will come later on,” then there is no problem at all.

Now, the text doesn’t exactly say either one, so you have to do more digging. My argument is that the way he answers his brothers, the way he arrives halfway through the Feast, the way he makes a public appearance where his brothers would surely see him – all of these things point more toward the second option than the first.

There is no definite way to know what Jesus said and how his brothers understood him, so it is possible you are right and it is possible I am right. We’ll probably have to wait to ask Jesus ourselves….
http://aisforatheist5760.blogspot.com A is for Atheist

Actually Bill, that is a good point. This the behavior of a lunatic, or a habitual liar. In one of my blog posts called, “CS Lewis’ False Dilemma: Ray Comfort Unintentionally Offered Another Potential Alternative Disjunct to CS Lewis’ “Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord” Argument,” I show that Jesus being a lunatic, or a habitual liar is a better explanation than his being a Lord. And now, we can add to the list, another option, which is, Jesus just was not too bright. Because as you say, to tell such a lie, and not to understand the consequences, illustrates the thinking level of someone whose thinking ability is at a low level. But to be fair to Jesus, if he existed, we should say the “biblical writers” were not too bright. This is supported throughout the bible where we have inconsistencies, contradictions, and overall bad writing.
Michael Hyder

Bill,
The scenario actually does make sense. Jesus told his brothers that he would not be attending the feast. He then secretly attended anyway. This is a deception on the part of Jesus, even though he later revealed the deception when he revealed himself at the feast. It is evident from the story that Jesus intended to go to the feast, despite telling his brothers otherwise. If he had merely changed his mind, there would have been no reason to disguise himself from his brothers at the feast at all. Jesus seems to have had specific intentions, apparently wishing to “test the waters” at the feast to judge whether an appearance would be safe. It appears that Jesus 1) said he would not go to the feast because it was unsafe for him to do so, 2) went anyway in secret, 3) noticed that, though many were whispering about him, “no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews,” and 4) probably took this as a sign that it was a safe enough environment for him to reveal himself.
Anonymous

Bill,

Assuming that the English translation is accurate, I think that the big problem for your theory is the “however.” The word “however” in such a context indicates that what follows in some sense stands in opposition to what came before. For example, “He told his boss that he was sick, however, he went to the baseball game.” “His doctor told him to lose some weight, however he ate a whole deep dish pizza for lunch.”

The “however” in verse ten shows that the author understood Jesus’ actions to have been inconsistent with what he said to his brothers. I think that trumps your attempt to harmonize his words and his conduct.
Michael Hyder

Jesus may not have known in advance whether he would eventually show himself at the feast or not. He could have easily deceived his brothers with the intention of doing “reconnaissance” at the feast, only to find that the feast’s atmosphere was not as dangerous as he had anticipated, and that there was no need to hiding.

Furthermore, you are leaving out a very important point here: Jesus claimed to be the prophesied Messiah, but at this early date in his story, “even his brothers did not believe” (John 7:1-9). If you suspend for a moment your presupposition that Jesus was in fact the Messiah of the Jewish people and a living god, it easily follows that Jesus was simply afraid of being publicly humiliated in front of his brothers, or worse, arrested. But then, he went to the feast, got his courage up, and the rest is history. This can be read directly from the text, as well as the context you provide in defense of your argument.
http://toughquestionsanswered.com Bill Pratt

“However” may simply mean that Jesus did not know what his timing would be when he talked to his brothers, but he knew that he was not going with them. Once they left and a few days had gone by, he felt the timing was right and he went to the Feast. There is just no deception whatsoever in this scenario.

Again, to prove deception, you have to show that Jesus knew all along that he was going to the Feast AND that he told his brothers he was definitely not going to the Feast at all. You simply canot find those two things in the text.
http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/ DagoodS

Bill Pratt: Again, to prove deception, …

“Prove”? To whom? It would seem even Christians pre-disposed toward Christianity struggle with this issue, let alone neutrals or non-Christians. “Prove”? At what standard? Beyond a reasonable doubt? More likely than not? Absolute certainty?
Michael Hyder

The trouble is, Bill, that your article here clearly states that there was no deception involved on the part of Jesus, so you incur the same burden of proof as someone claiming that Jesus did deceive his brothers. You’re not only saying that there isn’t enough textual evidence to prove deception, but also that deception did not occur. The text really doesn’t say either way, and the argument that you give here, both in the article and in your comments, is just speculation. And since you are engaging in speculation yourself, you can’t simply discredit another’s argument as speculative.

If we’re just talking “reasonable doubt,” then many of the comments on this thread have more than adequately provided such doubt in the case of Jesus’ truthfulness in these passages.
Anonymous

Bill,

The problem that I see with that theory is the author’s use of the word “therefore.” “Therefore” indicates that Jesus telling his brothers that he wasn’t going to the feast was a consequence of their unbelief. By implication, had they believed in him, the author thinks that Jesus might have told them something different. That would seem to cut against the idea that Jesus didn’t know what he was going to do.
http://toughquestionsanswered.com Bill Pratt

Let me be more precise. I think that the text can look, on the surface, as if Jesus was deceiving his brothers. I do not think he was deceiving his brothers and I made a case for that intepretation in the post and in further comments.

However, as I said to Jeff, the text does not give us enough information to determine, for sure (100% probability), what the correct interpretation is.

I would say that the case I made pushes us past 50/50, maybe to 75/25 in favor of no deception, but I would not say that 75/25 is beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, the person who wants to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (>95% probability) that Jesus was lying has to provide evidence that just doesn’t exist in the text.
Todd

Bill,

I don’t think there is room for interpretation here. The text clearly states that he said he said one thing, then did another.

If all passages so clear cut in the bible are open to such interpretation, it would seem that the entire text could be rendered meaningless from one persons opinion to another.
Anonymous

I’m rather puzzled as to how timing would contrast with taunting. It sounds like an ad hoc attempt to rationalize the inconsistencies between Jesus’ words and actions, which is not at all straightforward.

I have an alternative rationalization: Jesus’ brothers challenge him to go to the feast to perform some miracles in order to show the world what he can do. So when Jesus said he wasn’t going to the feast, he didn’t mean that he wasn’t going at all; he just meant that he wasn’t going there to show off. In point of fact, even when he did make himself known at the temple, he taught rather than working miracles.

I think that works better.
Michael Hyder

Bill,

You say:
“Let me be more precise. I think that the text can look, on the surface, as if Jesus was deceiving his brothers. I do not think he was deceiving his brothers and I made a case for that intepretation in the post and in further comments.”

I understand this, and I am pointing out that the case you make is speculation, like you accuse the comments here of being.

You say:
“However, as I said to Jeff, the text does not give us enough information to determine, for sure (100% probability), what the correct interpretation is.”

This text does not actually even give you 100% probability that the story even happened in the first place, nor does its context, nor does corroborating historical evidence.

You say:
“I would say that the case I made pushes us past 50/50, maybe to 75/25 in favor of no deception, but I would not say that 75/25 is beyond a reasonable doubt.”

These numbers are completely arbitrary, unless I am missing something. It seems that in many people’s estimation (judging from the comments here) this passage is written in a way that at least *seems* to imply deception. When you say “I think that the text can look, on the surface, as if Jesus was deceiving his brothers,” you are conceding that the case you make against Jesus deceiving his brothers is contrary to what *appears* to happen in the text. Being that the situation appears to be different on the surface than you interpret it, and that you provide no new contradictory evidence to support your case, you certainly cannot boast that you have effectively argued your point to a conclusion of “75/25″ or even “50/50,” since you admit that the text openly seems to contradict your argument.

You say:
“On the other hand, the person who wants to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (>95% probability) that Jesus was lying has to provide evidence that just doesn’t exist in the text.”

First, I’m not sure where you get the “>95%” from. As far as I know, there is absolutely no way to determine this percentage of doubt, nor is there such a standardized percentage that is used to determine the validity of arguments like this, in the courtroom or otherwise.

Second, you seem to want to have it both ways in this discussion. If you merely wanted to argue that there is not sufficient evidence from the text to prove that Jesus lied, this is easily done. But you are obviously not satisfied with this, as you want to supplant the argument of deception with your own argument in support of Jesus’ honesty, which is equally un-provable, and appears less in agreement with the biblical text than the case for deception that you are arguing against.
James Snapp

Bill,
This should be rewritten to account for the text-critical aspect of the question.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Matt

I agree with Bill. I do think the text favors that Jesus was in no way being deceptive, just secretive. He made it very clear that He was not going up to the feast with them. Also notice the very important word “yet” which is used to imply that He will come to this very long feast, just not with them. ““I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come.” Having said this, he stayed in Galilee.””
The However in English does imply that Jesus did something different, but does not show it to be different from what He said. The however seems to follow from the last phrase “he stayed in Galilee.” It does not follow that the however is referring to Jesus saying one thing and doing another. It is saying that “He stayed in Galilee. However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.” Bill’s point that at first glance this may seem like deception may be true, but does not mean that is what the text implies, but only that people commonly misunderstand things at first glance.
Anonymous

He made it very clear that He was not going up to the feast with them.

I don’t see any discussion whatsoever of Jesus and his brothers going together. When his brothers first challenge Jesus to go, they don’t say anything about going themselves. Jesus instructs them to go and they do. There is no implication that he merely meant to communicate that he wouldn’t go with them, since he announces that he is not going before there is any mention of his brothers going.

Tough Questions Answered

.: Tags :.

.: Categories :.

.: Archives :.