Did Jesus lie? Use Logos to determine...

Hey everyone...

I must admit that I have traditionally been a user of the KJV of the bible. For various reasons, of which I won't get into here, I have been using the ESV for about a month now.

This morning, I read something interesting and I'd like to get some feedback on it. To keep it on topic, please discuss how you'd use Logos to come to terms with the text.

The issue:

John 7:8 says that Jesus said to his disciples that he was not going up to the feast because his time had not fully come. However, in verse 10, it says that he went up anyways - privately but not publicly.

So - did Jesus lie? Or is this a translation error and the KJV's 'YET' should have been included? What is your answer and how would I use LOGOS to flesh this sort of thing out?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Nord Zootman

You set up a false dichotomy as if the only choices were a translation error or that Jesus lied.

I'm sure you could consult whatever commentaries you have for help, but the simple explanation is that he did not go immediately (and publicly), but chose to go later. Hardly needs to be called a lie.

Edited - I answered hastily (never a good thing) and failed to note the textual variant that Richard pointed out.

Rich DeRuiter

Hey everyone...

I must admit that I have traditionally been a user of the KJV of the bible. For various reasons, of which I won't get into here, I have been using the ESV for about a month now.

This morning, I read something interesting and I'd like to get some feedback on it. To keep it on topic, please discuss how you'd use Logos to come to terms with the text.

The issue:

John 7:8 says that Jesus said to his disciples that he was not going up to the feast because his time had not fully come. However, in verse 10, it says that he went up anyways - privately but not publicly.

So - did Jesus lie? Or is this a translation error and the KJV's 'YET' should have been included? What is your answer and how would I use LOGOS to flesh this sort of thing out?

To resolve the issue, I'd look at textual variants (if you have those resources) and/or at resources that discuss the translation issues involved here. For example the NET Bible note on this point is helpful for the textual variant discussion.

Supposing that the harder reading is correct, one must then resolve the question of whether "going up" with the qualifier "time" (kairos - a key word in this pericope) is enough to resolve the issue. Another qualifier is v.9. How long did he stay? Further when Jesus goes up, He does not appear at the feast (of tabernacles), but in the temple where He teaches.There is no indication that he participated in the feast at all--even though it was going on in Jerusalem at the time!

Checking commentaries there are numerous explanations to resolve the apparent inconsistency.

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/300429#Comment_300429

You set up a false dichotomy as if the only choices were a translation error or that Jesus lied. One simple place to begin your quest with Logos if you are not familiar with the Greek texts is to go to the King James interlinear (sorry George) and note that there is no Greek word corresponding to the English word yet. It has been supplied to aid in understanding.

I'm sure you could consult whatever commentaries you have for help, but the simple explanation is that he did not go immediately (and publicly), but chose to go later. Hardly needs to be called a lie.

The dichotomy is superfluous. Meant only to draw attention to the subject matter. I certainly am not being critical of our Lord's integrity. Of the text, however, I am.

As for there being no Greek work in the corresponding interlinear, I do not think that is correct. In the KJV and it's inline interlinear, I find the word used for 'NOT' to be oupo - which according to Louw-Nida is "the negation of extending time up to and beyond an expected point—‘not yet, still not.’"

Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament : Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., 645 (New York: United Bible societies, 1996).

The corresponding word in the ESV inline interlinear is ouk - which according to Louw-Nida is markers of negative propositions—‘not.’

It seems to me that one carries the distinction of a delay in time while the other doesn't. Certainly, this could be simply textual variation. But, being this an area I'm not familiar with, my question remains the same... What is the best way to use Logos for this research?

I think it would be fair to say that the unlearned, ungreeked, etc could critically interpret our Lord's statement as a lie. Deceitful at best.

While I certainly don't think so, as mentioned above, I am new to the ESV and AM looking at it with a rather critical eye. I need to trust it. I'm asking for some of the more 'learned' of the forum to help me use my resources to learn to do so.

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/300431#Comment_300431

Hey everyone...

I must admit that I have traditionally been a user of the KJV of the bible. For various reasons, of which I won't get into here, I have been using the ESV for about a month now.

This morning, I read something interesting and I'd like to get some feedback on it. To keep it on topic, please discuss how you'd use Logos to come to terms with the text.

The issue:

John 7:8 says that Jesus said to his disciples that he was not going up to the feast because his time had not fully come. However, in verse 10, it says that he went up anyways - privately but not publicly.

So - did Jesus lie? Or is this a translation error and the KJV's 'YET' should have been included? What is your answer and how would I use LOGOS to flesh this sort of thing out?

To resolve the issue, I'd look at textual variants (if you have those resources) and/or at resources that discuss the translation issues involved here. For example the NET Bible note on this point is helpful for the textual variant discussion.

Supposing that the harder reading is correct, one must then resolve the question of whether "going up" with the qualifier "time" (kairos - a key word in this pericope) is enough to resolve the issue. Another qualifier is v.9. How long did he stay? Further when Jesus goes up, He does not appear at the feast (of tabernacles), but in the temple where He teaches.There is no indication that he participated in the feast at all--even though it was going on in Jerusalem at the time!

Checking commentaries there are numerous explanations to resolve the apparent inconsistency.

Richard,

Thanks for posting. Of interest to me is your comment on vs 10 and beyond. The nuance was lost on me that he never showed at the feast (confirmed by vs 11 where they were looking for him) and went to the temple to teach instead.

I'm fascinated at this point...

Nord Zootman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/300436#Comment_300436

Tom,

You are correct as I edited my post even as you posted this. As I stated, I responded off the cuff and rather quickly. I was probably overly-bothered by the dichotomy. [:)]

The NET bible notes that Richard suggested are a good place to note some of the textual discussions (even if you don't care for the translation)

Jack Caviness

John 7:8 says that Jesus said to his disciples that he was not going up to the feast because his time had not fully come. However, in verse 10, it says that he went up anyways - privately but not publicly.

You need to take another look at the text. Jesus did not say this to His disciples, but to His brothers who still rejected His claims to Messiahship.

You might want to research the meaning of "My/His hour" in the Fourth Gospel. That term has a great impact on the interpretation of this passage. It was not yet time for His public presentation as Messiah. Note, however, that he did make some rather public declarations at the end of the feast.

Ralph Mauch

So - did Jesus lie? Or is this a translation error and the KJV's 'YET' should have been included? What is your answer and how would I use LOGOS to flesh this sort of thing out?

Here is what the ESV Study Bibles says, which is a great resource:

7:8 Jesus’ statement, “I am not going up to this feast,” should not be taken as a mistake by John or a falsehood by Jesus, even though John then records that Jesus did go up to the feast (v. 10). The Greek present tense in v. 8 can legitimately have the sense, “I am not now going,” indicating that Jesus did not go up to the feast in the way the brothers suggested, for they wanted Jesus to manifest himself to his contemporaries for secular reasons. In fact, many of the oldest and best manuscripts have oupō (Gk. “not yet”) rather than simply ouk (Gk. “not”), and that might have been the original reading, though the reading “not” seems more likely to be original.^{^[1]}

You can however delve into more insight with Logos as the others already suggested

^{^[1]} Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (2037). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

Milford Charles Murray

Tom! Peace and Every Blessing! *smile*

How would I use Logos here? I have so many studies "on the go" and so many layouts of items and passages that I wish to study that often, like in this case where I have a myriad amount of tasks I'd like to do yet before the sun sets, that I use a few personal "short-cuts."

In this instance I quickly referred to The Lutheran Study Bible and then The ESV Study Bible that Ralph mentioned above, remembering your original post was re. the ESV translation.

Then, I referred to my personal favourite New Testament Commentary by Lenski because of his very excellent understanding and explanations of the meaning of underlying Koine Greek original. Then, I begin to open many parallel resources using the arrow to quickly look at the many commentary resources I have. This is a fantastic blessing that Logos 4 has this feature! That way I can actually check out a whole bunch of "authorities" (?) very, very quickly indeed.

Just now I briefly scanned at least a dozen commentaries to see if the "gist" of it was pretty much the same -- that there was basic agreement among them. Then, often, I am led to do some original language study. However, in this case, the issue didn't concern me enough to go "in depth."

Hebrews 13:5

Permit me to share a wee bit from Lenski, who I believe, pretty much summarised the whole issue very succinctly:

8) Thus Jesus says to his brethren: Do you go up to the feast; I do not go up to this feast, because my right time has not yet been fulfilled. And having said this to them, he remained in Galilee. Jesus tells his brethren to go to he feast, and they no doubt went. As regards himself he states that he is not going "to the feast." Yet v. 10 informs us that he went after all, not publicly but in secret, and, as v. 14 shows, so as to arrive in the midst of the celebration. For Jesus to say that he is not going, and then for him to go after all, impresses many as being a contradiction, which they then attempt to remove. They forget the connection in which Jesus says that he is not going. The interchange with his brethren deals not with an ordinary attendance of Jesus at the approaching festival but with an attendance which would make this festival the right time for Jesus to manifest himself to the world. The latter Jesus declines. He tells his brethren, "You go up to the feast!" namely in your customary way. Of himself he says, "I do not go up to this feast," namely to make "this feast" what you suggest. Whether he will go at all or not is another matter. He may stay away altogether; but if he goes, it will not be to make of this feast what his brethren propose. The pointed demonstrative "this feast" is in contrast with another feast, namely the coming Passover, which will, indeed, be the right time for Jesus to manifest himself to the world.

That this is the meaning of his words appears in the reason why Jesus declines to go to this feast: "because my right time has not yet been fulfilled." Six additional months will fill up that measure; then, and not until then, will Jesus carry out what at this feast would be untimely. We need only to understand what Jesus really declines to do, then even the appearance of a contradiction between his words and his subsequent act disappears.

Then, too, the proposed solutions for the supposed contradiction are unnecessary. One of the most ancient is a slight change in the reading,

οὕπω in place of οὑκ; as if Jesus means to say, "You go on up now, I am not yet going but will follow later on." But this change in the reading is valueless unless we suppose a contradiction and make this change in the reading the means for its removal. The moment we understand Jesus aright, "not yet" would refer to the right time for the manifestation to the world—this right time is not the present festival but another that is not far off. Other solutions for the supposed difficulty are less convincing. One is that Jesus changes his mind, first deciding not to go at all, then deciding to go at least for the latter part of the feast. Another is, that the Father changes the mind of Jesus for him, ordering him to go after he himself has resolved not to go and after he had told his brethren that he would not go. But such a Christ and such a Father the Gospels do not know: a Christ who changes no to yes; but note ἐγώ
—this festival is not the right time for him to go up as they were proposing. What Jesus declines is not an attendance at the coming feast but to make this feast the time for what his brethren suggest. Note that the demonstrative "this" appears only when Jesus speaks of himself.
With this correct view of the declination agrees not only the previous context but also the subsequent, the quiet way Jesus chose for going, his late arrival, and the continuance of the clash with the authorities without decisive issue. We have no reason whatever to assume that Jesus changed his mind, first deciding not to go at all, then deciding to go at least for the latter part of the feast. Or that his Father changed his mind for him, ordering him to go after he himself had resolved not to go. Since no problem exists, we need no solution.
9) Jesus, accordingly, remained behind in Galilee, the aorist merely noting the fact.
10) Now when his brethren were gone up to the feast, then he, too, went up, not publicly, but as it were in secret. His brethren wanted him to go as publicly as possible. This Jesus refused to do. His plan was to go as quietly as possible. So he delays until his brethren have gone with the crowds of pilgrims, until the roads are deserted, and then he goes with only the Twelve to accompany him. The emphasis is on the way in which Jesus goes up, and
οὑ φανερῶς is in direct Contrast to φανέρωσον σεαυτὸν τῷ κόσμῳ in v. 4. This is even enhanced by adding the positive: "as it were (ὡς
) in secret." After everyone had gone who intended to go, this was easy.

...................^[1] Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The interpretation of St. John's gospel (535–538). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/300459#Comment_300459

I think it's always important to remember Jesus' guidance when reviewing the text:

Quoting of course from Mat 10:34 'I did not come to put peace on earth, but rather differences of opinion ....' (I left off the 'sword' part).

That came from the Curetonianus (Syriac Gospels) translated by Wilson (Gorgias Collection).

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/300470#Comment_300470

You can however delve into more insight with Logos as the others already suggested

Started reading John 7:8 in UBS Handbook, after reference back to verse 6, looked at preceding context, so included John 7:4-8 translation comments:

Also found "The NET Bible" has a footnote to ponder.

Logos 4 can compare Greek manuscripts:

Logos Greek Morphology visual filters are usable in Greek and English Reverse Interlinear Bibles that have appropriate tagging.

NIV84 has a footnote about "yet" displayed.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/300661#Comment_300661

Hope this helps out the original poster Tom C....I really enjoyed reading everyone's approach to Tom's question. The thread highlights range of resources we have at our finger tips to delve into questions like this, even those who have no Greek understanding can find resources to help answer their questions.

[Y] everyone.... its encouraging to see

Ralph Mauch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/300664#Comment_300664

The thread highlights range of resources we have at our finger tips to delve into questions like this, even those who have no Greek understanding can find resources to help answer their questions.

everyone.... its encouraging to see

[Y][Y] Yes, it is encouraging, I've been using a Logos product for countless years, and it keeps getting better all the time! I enjoyed Milford's post, and Keep Smiling's screen shot... sometimes one learns to ask the question a little different, and the results come back to give one a fuller picture. Good to see you post Andrew!

Harbey Santiago

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/300459#Comment_300459

John 7:8 says that Jesus said to his disciples that he was not going up to the feast because his time had not fully come. However, in verse 10, it says that he went up anyways - privately but not publicly.

You need to take another look at the text. Jesus did not say this to His disciples, but to His brothers who still rejected His claims to Messiahship.

You might want to research the meaning of "My/His hour" in the Fourth Gospel. That term has a great impact on the interpretation of this passage. It was not yet time for His public presentation as Messiah. Note, however, that he did make some rather public declarations at the end of the feast.

Jack,

Your answer tags along very nicely with what I had in my mind. To me the answer is more theological than scriptural. Hear me out. The theological definition of a lie is "To deprive of the truth those who have not right to it". Jesus was speaking to his kin, who still did not believe in him, they had no right to know what his plans as the messiah were. Jesus did not lie to them, they just had no need to know his plans.

"Viva Cristo Rey!!"

Deacon Harbey Santiago

Archdiocese of Baltimore

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301236#Comment_301236

Harbey ... at first I thought you were serious.

Then I knew you were just joking. Politicians would sure love to have that kind of logic!!

Harbey Santiago

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301238#Comment_301238

Harbey ... at first I thought you were serious.

Then I knew you were just joking. Politicians would sure love to have that kind of logic!!

The problem is they apply it to often.

I posted my answer half in jest. Seriously now, currently I'm at work so I have no access to my Logos so I depend on what I can remember of my Aquinas to slog throughout interesting posts. [:D]

"Viva Cristo Rey!!"

Deacon Harbey Santiago

Archdiocese of Baltimore

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/300431#Comment_300431

Supposing that the harder reading is correct, one must then resolve the question of whether "going up" with the qualifier "time" (kairos - a key word in this pericope) is enough to resolve the issue. Another qualifier is v.9. How long did he stay? Further when Jesus goes up, He does not appear at the feast (of tabernacles), but in the temple where He teaches.There is no indication that he participated in the feast at all--even though it was going on in Jerusalem at the time!

Taken at face value, the words I bolded are preposterous in the extreme. He went to Jerusalem and the temple during the Feast and He didn't participate in the Feast?? The entire concept is absurd. Where exactly do you think the Feast festivities were located? Jehu's Crab Shack??

I shouldn't have to mention Exo. 23:14-17, Exod. 34:23-24, and Deut. 16:16, which positively express a commandment to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Yeishuu`a went to the Feast because He commanded Himself to go to the Feast. If He didn't go, he sinned...because it was His will that He keep Tohraah.

I will explain the underlined part in my next post...

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301324#Comment_301324

I posted my answer half in jest.

Glad to know that. [8-|]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301400#Comment_301400

Taken at face value, the words I bolded are preposterous in the extreme.

There are many people who post statement that I consider preposterous - including occasional posts from people I generally agree with. It is fortunate for the forum as I whole that I do not state such opinions - whether out of courtesy, understanding of the guidelines, or sheer frustration with the stupidity. But thanks for warning me that this thread is moving towards theology/interpretation rather than use of Logos so that I can bypass the remainder of this thread. Unfortunately, I've already read this far.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301400#Comment_301400

Supposing that the harder reading is correct, one must then resolve the question of whether "going up" with the qualifier "time" (kairos - a key word in this pericope) is enough to resolve the issue. Another qualifier is v.9. How long did he stay? Further when Jesus goes up, He does not appear at the feast (of tabernacles), but in the temple where He teaches.There is no indication that he participated in the feast at all--even though it was going on in Jerusalem at the time!

Taken at face value, the words I bolded are preposterous in the extreme. He went to Jerusalem and the temple during the Feast and He didn't participate in the Feast?? The entire concept is absurd. Where exactly do you think the Feast festivities were located? Jehu's Crab Shack??

I shouldn't have to mention Exo. 23:14-17, Exod. 34:23-24, and Deut. 16:16, which positively express a commandment to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Yeishuu`a went to the Feast because He commanded Himself to go to the Feast. If He didn't go, he sinned...because it was His will that He keep Tohraah.

I will explain the underlined part in my next post...

I think you brought up a valid point here. Participating in this Feast was not optional for a Jew. Since we know that Jesus followed the Law perfectly, I'm going to say that it is absolutely undeniable that Jesus participated in the Feast.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301400#Comment_301400

Taken at face value, the words I bolded are preposterous in the extreme.

I'm not the only one to make this suggestion. See also Leon Morris in NICNT on v.8 of this passage.

As to how this reconciles with His participation in the Jewish cultus, is a matter of Christology that goes far beyond the scope of these forums.

EDIT: I severely edited myself here, in an attempt (probably futile) to avoid theological discussions.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301236#Comment_301236

To me the answer is more theological than scriptural. Hear me out. The theological definition of a lie is "To deprive of the truth those who have not right to it".

I think you mistyped this, since your definition seems to want to make a true point but instead says something not remotely true. Rather, it is true to say, "If someone has no right to the truth, it isn't a lie to deprive them of it." This is the idea behind the concept of the "strong delusion" (2 Thes. 2:11--literally, "working of error"). Because people love the lie and hate the truth, YHWH "gives the people what they want" even though it is not truth but error.

Jesus was speaking to his kin, who still did not believe in him, they had no right to know what his plans as the messiah were. Jesus did not lie to them, they just had no need to know his plans.

It's too bad you seemed to back off of this statement when someone called it into question, because it is essentially correct. Anyone who doesn't accept the truth of this statement is begging to become subject to the strong delusion...and is almost certainly walking in it even now.

YHWH cannot lie (according to Tit. 1:2). This doesn't mean He can't bring Himself to lie. It means, believe it or not, that He couldn't speak a lie even if He wanted to. Nothing YHWH says, regardless of content, is or can be a lie. The reason this is true is because the "theological definition of a lie" (to borrow Harbey's wording) is to speak in oppostition to the will of 'Elohhiym. WHATEVER comes out of God's mouth (since He can't be made to do what is against His will) is thereby in accordance with His will. It is thus immaterial whether He gets a "lying spirit" to accomplish His will. (1 Kgs 22:22)

Get this profoundly important point: YHWH ALONE IS THE MEASURE OF TRUTH. There is no "objective" measure to which He aligns Himself in order to be right. He is the embodied defintion of RIGHT. Though He is not the "father of lies" (Jn. 8:44), once hassaataan gave birth to the phenomenon, YHWH has all prerogative to use this "tool/weapon" to accomplish His purposes, and Scripture is replete with examples of Him doing exactly that.

Could the text issue at hand be one of "textual variance"? Perhaps so...maybe the words that came out of Yeishuu`a's mouth were "not yet". But even if He said "not" precisely for the purpose of deceiving his brothers to "get them off His back", so to speak, it still isn't a lie for Him, because He would have spoken such as to accomplish His will. Refer again to the underlined definition above. Then compare to my post above.

God truly CANNOT lie...as long as He is speaking in accordance with His will, whatever the form or whatever the content that may be contained in His words. His ways are ABOVE our ways. If you don't see or agree with what I'm saying, it is because you don't understand Him and how different He is from us. Let me say it a different way: a lie is not a lie because it disagrees with some ontological fact. It is a lie because it disagrees with YHWH.

To illustrate this point, let's notice a couple of things. First, the word "lie" is only found once in the Gospels, and we already looked at it--Jn. 8:44.

This verse shows that something is a lie because it agrees with Satan...i.e. it is opposed to 'Elohhiym. It isn't a lie just because it disagrees with some "objective fact", but rather because it disagrees with God. That said, we should note that our present-day, current understanding of the word "lie" isn't exactly the same thing as "bearing false witness". That probably surprises (and possibly angers) some folks, but it's true nonetheless. Notice Exo. 1:15-21, where the Pharaoh told the Hebrew midwives to kill the male babies, but they didn't. This response and action isn't wrong on their part, but notice what they did when they were questioned by Pharaoh about it. (Exo. 1:19) By current standards, the two midwives deliberately lied to the Egyptian king, in order to cover up their actions which were in disobedience to his command. So YHWH crushed them and caused them to die like Uzzah and Ananias & Sapphira, right? Noooo...rather, He blessed them greatly for ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS WILL. Did that include a "lie"??? Yes, a bold-faced lie. But in so lying, the two women, in their FEAR of YHWH, bore TRUE WITNESS TO HIS SOVEREIGN WILL.

I can anticipate many of the reactions that will come against what I'm saying--but they are all irrelevant. Probably the most profuse one will be, "but if what you are saying is true, then anyone can lie anytime!" Sorry, that is completely false. What I am asserting is a FAR STRONGER standard than any commonly held notion about "lying" can hope to uphold. If YHWH's will is the standard, then we have no collective need to "fear" this different concept. Rather, we must do only what He has always required of His people (like the two midwives, Exo. 1:17, 21, and his body, Acts 5:11 )--FEAR HIM.

Returning to Jn. 8, Yeishuu`a may have "lied" according to our standards. But whatever He did, He did in furtherance of His Father's will, and so it bore witness to the Father's TRUTH. It is therefore impossible that Messiah "bore false witness".

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301435#Comment_301435

Taken at face value, the words I bolded are preposterous in the extreme.

I'm not the only one to make this suggestion. See also Leon Morris in NICNT on v.8 of this passage.

Morris's quote follows:

Moreover, what they are urging him to do is to go up to keep the feast. This Jesus did not not do, neither then nor later. He was absent for a good part of the ceremonies, perhaps for all of them. He went up to give certain teaching, not to observe the feast in the manner of a pilgrim.

Morris, L. (1995). The Gospel According to John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (354). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

OUCH! A shocking statement on Morris's part...yet not surprising. Shocking, because it asserts that Yeishuu`a didn't keep the Tohraah that He spoke to Moses. If He didn't do so, He failed to keep the thing He had to keep perfectly in order to bear our sins. Why is it not surprising?

As to how this reconciles with His participation in the Jewish cultus, is a matter of Christology that goes far beyond the scope of these forums.

The word "cultus" is a word tossed around by high-brows when they want to diminish a given activity as "quaint" and "limited" and inevitably anachronistic. Morris clearly views "keeping the Feast" to be an irrelevancy. However, Zech. 14:16-19 says otherwise. Also, the so-called "cultus" isn't Jewish...that word isn't found in Lev. 23:2...but the author of the Feast that will be kept during the millennium IS identified there. If it belongs to anyone's cultus, it belongs to His.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301464#Comment_301464

The word "cultus" is a word tossed around by high-brows when they want to diminish a given activity as "quaint" and "limited" and inevitably anachronistic.

My brows are neither high nor furrowed. By cultus I mean the accepted system of religious practices. I've never heard the term used in a dismissive sense, but maybe my circles are limited to nicer people. It was not my intention to use the term in a dismissive sense either.

By "Jewish cultus," I only meant the system of religious practices followed by the "Jews" (term as used in the NT) of Jesus' day. By using this term I meant to include the entire system of religious practices of "the Jews" (as that term is used in the NT) not merely the feasts.

EDIT: clarified a few points.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301470#Comment_301470

In conversations not terribly concerned with strict accuracy, the Biblical term that is most commonly (and more accurately) used in place of "Jewish cultus" is Tohraah. By "strict accuracy", I mean that the reality is "the Jews" didn't actually keep Tohraah, they kept Judaism. In God's sight, the two are not remotely the same. Judaism is the man-made religion of rabbinical precepts (elsewhere called "the traditions of the fathers") that Yeishuu`a railed against throughout His ministry. The Pharisees-become-the-Rabbis eventually gave their concoction a name, the "Oral Tohraah", sometime after the Temple was destroyed, in order to blur the fact that their religion didn't quite follow Tanakh.

So, in evaluating what I've said above in relation to your comment about "religious practices of 'the Jews' ", the question that one should ask when seeking to understand what Yeishuu`a did is NEVER "what did the Jews do". The answer to that question is nearly always, "not what they were supposed to be doing".

The question we should and must ask is "what does Tohraah say", because we can be 100% certain He did exactly that.

Also, for the sake of clarification, the "fathers" mentioned above are those mentioned by Stephen in Acts 7:51-52, who refused to keep Tohraah (Acts 7:53). These are not the same fathers as mentioned in Deut. 6 (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), who kept YHWH's Tohraah (Gen. 26:5).

Bringing this all back to the conversation, calling what the Jews did a "cultus" is entirely appropriate, but calling what Messiah did a "cultus" is insulting. He kept Tohraah.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301400#Comment_301400

Taken at face value, the words I bolded are preposterous in the extreme. He went to Jerusalem and the temple during the Feast and He didn't participate in the Feast?? The entire concept is absurd. Where exactly do you think the Feast festivities were located? Jehu's Crab Shack??

Every New Years holiday in Japan the whole nation takes January 1st ~ 3rd off work and goes to a local temple to be blessed by priests for the coming year's good fortune. I know a lot of missionaries who literally "went to temple" during this time for the purpose of evangelizing the masses. To say they "went to temple" for New Years would be misleading.

Just because Jesus went to Jerusalem does not mean he had the same purpose for going that the masses had.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301488#Comment_301488

Quite so...His purpose wasn't merely to have a blow-out with friends. It was to fulfill the Tohraah...because that was His purpose, it was His will, it was His Father's will, and because Tohraah (meaning He Himself) REQUIRED it of Him.

Plus, I'm sure He enjoyed it as much as (and probably much more than) everyone else, especially given His awareness of the spectacular prophetic import that is inherent in the Feast. I always do. [<:o)]

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301481#Comment_301481

This is getting off track.

Either Jesus intentionally deceived his brothers, we misunderstand the Greek here (allowing for Jesus to simply go later - so Chrysostom), Jesus was only evading his brothers' intention that He 'go public' (Brown, I think) or that He went to Jerusalem, but didn't actually participate in the feast at all (Morris). Did I miss an option?

Looking at Logos' resources suggest all of the above options. The Bible student must make up his/her own mind about how the solution may or may not fit with the context of the Gospels, Christology, etc.

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301414#Comment_301414

I am really shocked to see such word to our blessed Savior, the best and polite question would have been , I don't understand this , what does it mean? Devil is the lair,not Jesus the Truth the way and the LIfe.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301571#Comment_301571

I am really shocked to see such word to our blessed Savior, the best and polite question would have been , I don't understand this , what does it mean? Devil is the lair,not Jesus the Truth the way and the LIfe.

You must understand where Tom is coming from to fully appropriate his concern. He certainly is not calling Jesus a liar. From what I can make out from his OP, it appears he has run into some KJV Only literature. The KJVO position states that the KJV is the only legitimate English Bible and that all the other English translations (the ones that work off of a "critical" Greek text) are inferior. Such literature often states that this verse in John (within modern bibles) makes Jesus out to be a liar. It must be noted that they are claiming the translation is wrong by pointing this appearnt inconsistency out. This supposedly gives credence to the superiority of the KJV which seemingly does not have this same problem because it uses the word "yet".

Tom merely wants to see if the modern English translations are, in fact, wrong.

BillS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301575#Comment_301575

I am really shocked to see such word to our blessed Savior, the best and polite question would have been , I don't understand this , what does it mean? Devil is the lair,not Jesus the Truth the way and the LIfe.

You must understand where Tom is coming from to fully appropriate his concern. He certainly is not calling Jesus a liar. [...]

Tom merely wants to see if the modern English translations are, in fact, wrong.

I think this makes Tes' point--I found myself a bit shocked to see that word used to describe our Savior, also, even though I see the point you're making, Joshua. Perhaps Tes' post can serve to help us be more respectful in our choice of language--of our Savior & of each others' beliefs.

I see no fault in intent, only an opportunity for increased sensitivity.

So as Rich suggests, since it's now too late to change the wording of the question, let's get back on track: use of Logos to answer the question positively that Jesus could only speak truth.

David McClister

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301575#Comment_301575

This is not a question that is settled by referring to Greek terms, nor by examining translations and their relative merits and weaknesses. It seems plain (at least to me) that the answer lies in John 7:3-4. Jesus would not go to the feast in the way and with the purpose they were demanding: with some public display of acclaim and power that would play into the then-current ideas about Israel's Messiah. v 10 then says he went up "as if in secret." It was not going to the feast that was the issue, but rather if Jesus fit with current Messianic expectations. He refused to do the latter even though he did actually go to Jerusalem at the time of the feast.

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301633#Comment_301633

I am really shocked to see such word to our blessed Savior, the best and polite question would have been , I don't understand this , what does it mean? Devil is the lair,not Jesus the Truth the way and the LIfe.

You must understand where Tom is coming from to fully appropriate his concern. He certainly is not calling Jesus a liar. [...]

Tom merely wants to see if the modern English translations are, in fact, wrong.

I think this makes Tes' point--I found myself a bit shocked to see that word used to describe our Savior, also, even though I see the point you're making, Joshua. Perhaps Tes' post can serve to help us be more respectful in our choice of language--of our Savior & of each others' beliefs.

I see no fault in intent, only an opportunity for increased sensitivity.

So as Rich suggests, since it's now too late to change the wording of the question, let's get back on track: use of Logos to answer the question positively that Jesus could only speak truth.

Wow. Thanks everyone for posting. MOST of the posts have been helpful. I appreciate the concern of those who have looked on the title of this post with disdain. It is, indeed, SHOCKING. And it was meant to be. I would not change it if I could. Imagine my shock when I read that modern translations have bastardized the scriptures in such a way to make out my Saviour to be a liar. Shocking indeed. I think in the modern day that we live in, we had better be prepared to ask and answer these types of questions ourselves. These are the questions that an educated, self-sufficient, God-denying world is asking of us. Agree?

At any rate, I do NOT want this to turn into a conversation about the KJVO vs Modern translations. The point is to figure out how to best utilize Logos resources to reconcile this SPECIFIC question.

Some of have suggested using footnotes inside of the modern translations themselves (ESV study bible, etc). While this is certainly helpful to give one an idea of what is going on here, it also is the same circular reasoning that I've read in the KJVO materials that the KJV is the standard by which all others are to be measured. What makes the KJV the standard? How can you use notes inside a modern translation to prove a modern translation?

There have been other posts that have been helpful in showing commentaries and such to help explain the issue. I appreciate everyone's guidance and input.

T Gerold Castle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301575#Comment_301575

I am really shocked to see such word to our blessed Savior, the best and polite question would have been , I don't understand this , what does it mean? Devil is the lair,not Jesus the Truth the way and the LIfe.

You must understand where Tom is coming from to fully appropriate his concern. He certainly is not calling Jesus a liar. From what I can make out from his OP, it appears he has run into some KJV Only literature. The KJVO position states that the KJV is the only legitimate English Bible and that all the other English translations (the ones that work off of a "critical" Greek text) are inferior. Such literature often states that this verse in John (within modern bibles) makes Jesus out to be a liar. It must be noted that they are claiming the translation is wrong by pointing this appearnt inconsistency out. This supposedly gives credence to the superiority of the KJV which seemingly does not have this same problem because it uses the word "yet".

Tom merely wants to see if the modern English translations are, in fact, wrong.

Very perceptive of you, Joshua. Thank you for posting.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301634#Comment_301634

This is not a question that is settled by referring to Greek terms, nor by examining translations and their relative merits and weaknesses. It seems plain (at least to me) that the answer lies in John 7:3-4. Jesus would not go to the feast in the way and with the purpose they were demanding: with some public display of acclaim and power that would play into the then-current ideas about Israel's Messiah. v 10 then says he went up "as if in secret." It was not going to the feast that was the issue, but rather if Jesus fit with current Messianic expectations. He refused to do the latter even though he did actually go to Jerusalem at the time of the feast.

There are two questions on the table, as I see it. The first is the one presented in the post heading: "Did Jesus lie?" Getting at a satisfactory answer for that question is a massive undertaking, primarily because (as I have discussed above) most people have a grossly limited concept of Who God is and thus what He is capable of--getting at an answer would require tinkering with dearly held ideas (i.e. sacred cows) that would involve engaging in interactions that are likely to produce more heat than light. Few people are willing to entertain the suggestion that they don't "know" YHWH as well as they think they do, Mt. 7:21-22 notwithstanding. This collective insistence doesn't prevent Yeishuu`a from countering that He doesn't know them...His charge being that they actually think and behave as if the Law is done away--the very Law He gave! (Mt. 7:23) It's a good thing that isn't a major doctrine of the Christian church!

The second question, it seems, is "What does the context of Jn. 7 indicate is happening?" I agree with your comments, David, that after doing the Logos-based "homework" (word studies, textual variations, etc.) we arrive at the conclusion that our study is inconclusive. I do agree that what you are expressing is the main issue. He isn't going to do things according to the ways of man or according to their expectations--EVEN WHEN THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE SIMPLY SAYING WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. Even Yeishuu`a's own words in Jn. 18:20 could be viewed as agreeing with His brothers' perspective.

Point being, even with 5-10,000 resources in Logos, the most important resource we have is the one between our ears. If our brain (through preconceptions about YHWH that simply aren't true) lets us down, no resource in Logos can ever properly resolve these difficult issues for us.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301688#Comment_301688

The problem is either the translation or in a specific interpretation of John 7. Logos has plenty of resources that provide reasonable and rational explanations for this "apparent" inconsistency in the translation. Therefore, it is best to assume that our interpretation is the real issue here - especially since interpreting the text to mean Jesus lied obviously contradicts the clear message in the Gospels of who Jesus was.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301773#Comment_301773

Therefore, it is best to assume that our interpretation is the real issue here - especially since interpreting the text to mean Jesus lied obviously contradicts the clear message in the Gospels of who Jesus was.

It's obvious, Jesus the man simply changed his mind.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/301789#Comment_301789

I'm one of the delusional (and presumably unwashed). But clearly v6 suggests Jesus had thought this whole issue over before he arrived at v8, probably to include whether 'now' (Peshitta) or 'yet' (Syrain gospels earliest) should be included.