# Jesus joking while talking to the rich young ruler?



## Rufus (May 31, 2011)

I usually don't mind Mark Driscoll but.... 

Jesus Makes a Joke about Camels | Sermon Notes, Luke #76 | The Mars Hill Blog


----------



## Theoretical (Jun 1, 2011)

That reminds me of a minister I knew preaching Mark 7 who said that Jesus deliberately "lost the argument" with the Syrophonecian woman over her ability to seek even the crumbs.


----------



## AThornquist (Jun 1, 2011)

Rufus said:


> I usually don't mind Mark Driscoll but....
> 
> Jesus Makes a Joke about Camels | Sermon Notes, Luke #76 | The Mars Hill Blog


 
What part or at what point do you take issue with what he is saying?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 1, 2011)

Ummm... since when did Mark Driscoll wear a jacket and tie? I am scandalised!


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 1, 2011)

Whether he meant it as light hearted or not, Jesus was definitely using satire to make his point.

And, I like the tie and jacket  It must have been really hot in there though.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 1, 2011)

I don't think it's a joke at all; I believe Jesus is making a point about the difficulty that a greedy heart that trusts in and idolizes its own wealth has in coming to saving faith.


----------



## Philip (Jun 1, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> I don't think it's a joke at all; I believe Jesus is making a point about the difficulty that a greedy heart that trusts in and idolizes its own wealth has in coming to saving faith.


 
Why not both? Just because Jesus is joking doesn't mean he isn't making a serious point.


----------



## Reformation Monk (Jun 1, 2011)

I've never considered Jesus to be "joking" in this passage of Scripture or even making light of the situation. I just don't think that out of His love that He would be joking about the heart state of the rich young ruler, but rather be serious in bringing him to repentance. Just my opinion though.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jun 1, 2011)

JonathanHunt said:


> Ummm... since when did Mark Driscoll wear a jacket and tie? I am scandalised!


 
It's with jeans though. He's still cool.


----------



## Philip (Jun 1, 2011)

Reformed Thomist said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> > Ummm... since when did Mark Driscoll wear a jacket and tie? I am scandalised!
> ...


 
Jackets and ties are cool, now.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 1, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it's a joke at all; I believe Jesus is making a point about the difficulty that a greedy heart that trusts in and idolizes its own wealth has in coming to saving faith.
> ...


But I don't see his disciples laughing about it. Instead, their remark is "Who then can be saved?"

Doesn't exactly strike me as something akin to Abbott and Costello.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 1, 2011)

I do not deny that there is humor in the bible, however I do not see it in this passage. On another note, the "commentators" that Driscoll so gleefully mocks could actually read in the original languages. These men dedicated their lives to studying the biblical languages and writing commentaries so that ordinary people could better understand, and yet Driscoll mocks them. This is why John Macarthur and others have issues with him and other so called YRR leaders, they have no respect for those who have come before them. It is one thing to say " most commentators think this, but I think that Jesus actually meant this." Commentators are not God, they make mistakes, but to come off as if you know it all and these men who wrote these commentaries are just idiots is just plain wrong and immature.


----------



## torstar (Jun 1, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > J. Dean said:
> ...


 


I see it as the Three Stooges except with a compassionate Moe who will think "you knuckleheads" but kindly explain again the lessons these people are just not grasping, instead of picking up a monkey wrench.

The irony that Jesus and Paul give us has not been duplicated by any other.

If you are lacking irony in your soul, pray you get infused and soon.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 1, 2011)

torstar said:


> I see it as the Three Stooges except with a compassionate Moe who will think "you knuckleheads" but kindly explain again the lessons these people are just not grasping, instead of picking up a monkey wrench.
> 
> The irony that Jesus and Paul give us has not been duplicated by any other.
> 
> If you are lacking irony in your soul, pray you get infused and soon.


 
Irony isn't the same as a Ray Romano stand up comedy joke.


----------



## torstar (Jun 1, 2011)

There was no comedy joke.

Jesus was rebuking them with the heaviest of ironies.

Not getting the religious or the ironic side was a double slap to them.

And they responded by plotting to and eventually murdering Him.

(As it was planned all along, even a bigger level of... oh never mind...)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 1, 2011)

I don't see Jesus taking such a serious question and making light hearted of it. The responses from the Rich Young Ruler nor the disciples were light hearted. Jesus actually exposed the young ruler's presumption that he had obeyed the commandments from his youth. There was nothing light hearted about that.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 1, 2011)

I think it is fair to say Driscoll made a blooper in calling it a "funny." Of course, no other solid Reformed preacher has ever made such a blooper. . . . (to be plain, I'm invoking a form of humor here.)

But there is a point in calling it humor as long as we remember that the term humor is bigger than light-hearted knee slapping. It used to be that humor was defined as a sense of the absurd, a perception of the incongruous, or, (as my 1928 Webster's cites), "a mixture of love and wit."

Certainly in the context Jesus loved the rich young ruler, and his biting wit cuts to the core. He invokes an absurdity: a camel passing through the eye of a needle? Even children would laugh at such an incongruous thought. Yet the aim of the absurdity was deadly serious. Sometimes humor is a very effective and devastating weapon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 1, 2011)

Very well said, Vic.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 1, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I do not deny that there is humor in the bible, however I do not see it in this passage. On another note, the "commentators" that Driscoll so gleefully mocks could actually read in the original languages. These men dedicated their lives to studying the biblical languages and writing commentaries so that ordinary people could better understand, and yet Driscoll mocks them. This is why John Macarthur and others have issues with him and other so called YRR leaders, they have no respect for those who have come before them. It is one thing to say " most commentators think this, but I think that Jesus actually meant this." Commentators are not God, they make mistakes, but to come off as if you know it all and these men who wrote these commentaries are just idiots is just plain wrong and immature.


 
Mark Driscoll has an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary. He's studied the original languages.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 1, 2011)

VictorBravo said:


> I think it is fair to say Driscoll made a blooper in calling it a "funny." Of course, no other solid Reformed preacher has ever made such a blooper. . . . (to be plain, I'm invoking a form of humor here.)


I agree, I'm not going to (and nobody should) attack Driscoll for this, I was just wondering what everybody had to say.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 1, 2011)

It's an ironic sort of humor, the kind of humor that has a very serious edge to it. 

"Funny" is probably not the best word for it. But the main thrust of the sermon seems accurate enough. And I'm glad I'm not judged too harshly on my specific word choice in everything I write and teach.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 1, 2011)

It's not the only place where there may be gentle humour in our Lord's discourses.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 1, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Mark Driscoll has an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary. He's studied the original languages



An MA is not even close to the level of education needed to truly understand the original languages. Anyone can use a concordance and a lexicon. And even if he did understand the original language, he is still wrong and standing against the vast majority of reformed thought on the matter.


----------



## elnwood (Jun 1, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Mark Driscoll has an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary. He's studied the original languages
> ...


 
Bill, the requirements for MA programs differ widely from school to school. The MA in Exegetical Theology (now the MA in Biblical and Theological Studies, exegetical track) from Western Seminary requires 9 semester units in Greek and and 9 semesters in Hebrew, including an exegetical class in each of them.
http://www.westernseminary.edu/CurrentStudents/PDX/Program_Checklists/2010-2011/MA BTS 10-11.doc

I'm assuming you would say an MDiv at SEBTS would give you a level of education to understand the original languages. Yet, an MDiv at SEBTS only requires 6 semester units in each of Greek and Hebrew with no exegetical classes, unless you opt for the "Advanced Biblical Studies" track.

Please, if you're going to criticize Mark Driscoll, please make sure you have your facts straight. You should give a minister of the gospel like Driscoll the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming that he is ignorant and uneducated.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 1, 2011)

elnwood said:


> Please, if you're going to criticize Mark Driscoll, please make sure you have your facts straight. You should give a minister of the gospel like Driscoll the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming that he is ignorant and uneducated.



I am not assuming he is ignorant and uneducated, I am simply pointing out that he is less qualified than the "commentators" that he is belittling. I don't have a problem with him having a different interpretation of the passage, but I do have a problem with his attitude of arrogance that is clearly evident in the video. Perhaps he should be the one giving the benefit of the doubt to the learned men who came before him.


----------



## AThornquist (Jun 1, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I don't have a problem with him having a different interpretation of the passage, but I do have a problem with his attitude of arrogance that is clearly evident in the video. Perhaps he should be the one giving the benefit of the doubt to the learned men who came before him.



Arrogance? It may be clear to you, but all I know for sure is that he is just being funny with some of the "out there" interpretations. And I agree with him, they were funny. So, speaking of giving people "the benefit of the doubt"....


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 2, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Please, if you're going to criticize Mark Driscoll, please make sure you have your facts straight. You should give a minister of the gospel like Driscoll the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming that he is ignorant and uneducated.
> ...


 
I didn't pick up arrogance. I saw a pastor trying to communicate some very important points. He did it well. What are those points?
1. There is no _substantial_ textual evidence for 'camel' to be 'cable'. 
2. There is no historic or archeological evidence for a 'needle's eye gate' in the wall of Jerusalem.

If you don't think it is important to point these out, even though they contradict many commentators consider this: If either of those were true it destroys Jesus' entire meaning because man can get a cable through a needles' eye and the camels could go through the mythological gate. The point of the passage is that it is ludicrous for a man to think that he can do something to inherit eternal life. 

By the way, I'm not a Driscoll 'fan'. Just so you know.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 2, 2011)

Sorry to go off topic but did anyone else notice what Driscoll said about Marin Luther and the Heidleberg catechism? Martin Luther has some good things to say about the 10C.....'he speaks of them in his Heidelberg Catechism'.....ahhhh....Luther died in 1646...the HB was published in published/approved in 1563.

Anyone can make a slip, but this is a big one, and, sorry for going off on a tangent, this to my mind is Driscoll's biggest weakness, he does not have a solid knowledge of historical theology, and Church history, for evidence see his ridiculous (and frankly dishonest) list of differences between 'new' and 'old' Calvinists.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 2, 2011)

JP Wallace said:


> Luther died in 1646



I think you meant 1546 

Yes, I did notice that little snafu on his part. All of us have made them at times. At least I know that I have. I recall one Lord's Day when I slipped and attributed the following quote to Erasmus.


> I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great pope, Self.



It is a Luther quote. Must be something about that great Reformer that sets our minds atwitter whilst preaching.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 2, 2011)

1546...ah hoisted on my own petard..whose idea was it to put 5 beside 6 on the keyboard anyway?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 2, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> I didn't pick up arrogance. I saw a pastor trying to communicate some very important points. He did it well. What are those points?
> 1. There is no substantial textual evidence for 'camel' to be 'cable'.
> 2. There is no historic or archeological evidence for a 'needle's eye gate' in the wall of Jerusalem.



I'm not neccesarily disagreeing with his interpretation, nor am I questioning his qualifications to teach, I am only disagreeing with the arrogance he demonstrates in mocking the so-called "commentators". Obviously we all have a right to disagree with what others believe or the way in which they interpret scripture, but show a little respect.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 2, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> I didn't pick up arrogance. I saw a pastor trying to communicate some very important points. He did it well. What are those points?
> 1. There is no substantial textual evidence for 'camel' to be 'cable'.
> 2. There is no historic or archeological evidence for a 'needle's eye gate' in the wall of Jerusalem.



Correct. He's debunking some very prevalent and very bad interpretations out there, most of which are trying to force an Arminian understanding onto the passage. Those interpretations deserve to be mocked. They ought to be mocked.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 2, 2011)

Jack K said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't pick up arrogance. I saw a pastor trying to communicate some very important points. He did it well. What are those points?
> ...



I agree. I just preached this passage a few weeks ago. It astounded me how many people had been taught a twisted view of what Jesus was trying to say.


----------

