Did Jesus Intend to Grab People's Attention When He Taught?

I was recently asked the following question:

“Can you show me with chapter and verse where the intent of those acts [i.e., the miracles and parables of Jesus] was to grab attention?”

The context of this question comes in response to my rugged defense of Ed Young’s ministerial and preaching methodology. I will explain later why I believe such a defense is important. Nevertheless, in brief, my defense is in response to accusations that Young’s methodology is unbiblical. As I’ve shown over many years, Young’s approach is highly and fundamentally biblical. Significantly, accusers never counter my argument of the biblical evidence with their own evidence from Scripture. Indeed, theirs is a silent and begrudging admission that my argument is sound and that Young’s methodology is biblical. Rather, the response is an unspoken “okay, yes, Young’s approach is technically biblical,” followed by a spoken, “but Young is doing it for unbiblical reasons.” When I’ve countered with evidence from Young’s books and his interviews about his stated biblical reasons for what he is doing, the accusers respond by either stubbornly refusing to look at the evidence or stating that Young doesn’t mean it. Both responses are implicit accusations that Young is lying about his intended rationale, but both come from individuals who were previously ignorant of the biblical foundation of Young’s methodology. Thus, the mentality of the accusers runs as follows: “I don’t care what the Bible says, or what Young’s stated intentions are, or what the results are; Young is wrong.” I shall get to the subject of Young’s results later.

Nevertheless, the above question intrigued me, and I felt it deserved a more thorough response. It’s a good question. If Young’s stated approach is to grab people’s attention in order to preach the gospel, and if, as I maintain, this is a biblical approach used by Jesus, what is the evidence for it? Now assuming that the above question is hypothetical, in order to maintain there is no evidence of intent, you have to argue that either Jesus was a poor preacher (an ineffective communicator) or that he didn’t know what he was doing.

First, every preacher, every teacher, every prophet, every speaker, tries to grab the attention of his or her audience in order to communicate. That’s the entire point. And to do so you use examples, you use illustrations, you use a plethora of rhetorical devices at your disposal to get people to see and hear the meaning you’re trying to communicate. Jesus used numerous rhetorical devices:  chiasm (Matthew 19:30), allusion (John 8:58), hyperbole (Mark 9:43), paradox (Matthew 16:25), parallelism (Matthew 7:7-8), simile (Matthew 28:3), typology (John 3:14-15), wordplay (Matthew 16:18), and many others so that people would see and hear what he was saying. Seeing and hearing. That’s the key. For preachers, it’s about communicating the truth of the gospel with the specific intent of creating two results. The first result is repentance. The second result ... we will come to later. Both require grabbing people’s attention so that they will see and hear. And here is the point: Nobody thinks that Jesus wasn’t a masterful communicator. Everyone, including the hardest liberal scholars who believe most of the Gospels were made up, still believe that Jesus was a master communicator who was able to grip his audience’s attention and transform their thinking by his words, parables, and symbolic actions. As David Wenham notes:

“Anyone can devise banal and/or inappropriate sermon illustrations. Jesus' parables are consistently appropriate and powerful, capturing the listeners' attention and then bringing them face to face with some aspect of his message which would be far less effectively communicated through non-pictorial language. Sometimes the power of the parable lies simply in the use of a thought-provoking analogy, such as that of the new wine in the old wineskins. Sometimes it is in the unusual twist and challenge that a story contains, as in the parable of the good Samaritan, which has particular biting force because it is a Samaritan, a religious and social outcast, who is the kind hero, or in the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, who work for different periods of time but all receive the same wage. Sometimes the story is one that stimulates thought and leaves people to make their own connections, as with the parable of the prodigal son, with its powerful portrayal of the runaway son, the loving father and the righteous elder brother.” (The Parables of Jesus, pp. 13-14)

So, based on an examination of Jesus’ teaching and preaching methodology, what was the result?

Matthew 4:24-25; 7:28; 8:1; 9:35-36; 12:14, 23, 46; 13:2, 34, 36, 54: 14:2, 13-23, 35; 15:10, 30-39, 17:14; 19:2, 25; 20:29, 31; 21:8-11, 12-16, 23, 45-46; 22:22, 33-34; 23:1; Mark 1:21-28, 33, 45; 2:1-2, 12-13; 3:7-10, 20, 32; 4:1-2, 26; 5:14-16, 20-21, 24, 31; 6:14, 33-34, 45, 53-56; 7:14, 17, 24, 33, 37; 8:1-2, 6, 9, 11, 34; 9:14-15, 25; 10:13, 17, 26, 32, 46; 11:8-11, 15-18, 27-28; 12:12, 37; Luke 4:28-29, 32, 36-37, 40-43; 5:1-3, 15-19, 26, 29; 6:17-19; 7:11, 16-18; 8:4, 19, 34-40, 42, 45; 9:7, 11-12; 11:14, 27, 29; 12:1, 13, 54; 13:17, 31; 14:1, 25; 15:1; 18:15, 36-41; 19:4, 37-38, 48; 20:45; John 2:2; 3:1-2, 26; 4:1, 30, 39-42, 53; 5:16; 6:2, 5, 14, 22-24; 7:12, 15, 31-32, 40-46; 8:30, 59; 9:11-34; 10:19, 24, 31, 39, 41-42; 11:45-57; 12:9-19, 29, 34.

The Scriptural evidence is that Jesus’ teaching and preaching methodology resulted in people’s attention being grabbed. I would submit that Jesus was an effective communicator who had the ability to cause people to see and hear what he was saying.

Second, even if Jesus was an effective communicator who grabbed people’s attention, was it his intent to do so? Perhaps he wasn’t intentional about his approach. Perhaps he wasn’t trying to get people’s attention when he proclaimed the Gospel. Perhaps God-incarnate didn’t know what he was doing when he employed a specific methodology that resulted in people’s attention being grabbed. In truth, even hardcore liberal scholars who deny Jesus’ deity believe he intentionally employed his methodology to grab people’s attention so that he might effectively communicate. Indeed, Jesus himself said he did what he did so that people might believe (John 10:37-38). Elsewhere, Jesus pointed to his actions as evidence for his Messiahship (Matthew 11:2-5; Luke 7:22; John 2:11; 14:11; Acts 2:22). Importantly, in the Gospels, those who believe the gospel are said to see and hear. Those who do not are said to be blind and deaf. Seeing and hearing.

Therefore, we come to Jesus’ stated intention for why he taught in parables:

“Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;

You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;

For the heart of this people has become dull,

With their ears they scarcely hear,

And they have closed their eyes,

Otherwise they would see with their eyes,

Hear with their ears,

And understand with their heart and return,

And I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” (Matthew 13:10-17)

So, Jesus states that his intention is to grab people’s attention with his parables for two results: first, so that they may see and hear, and second so that others may not. What were the results of his intention? First, many people saw, heard, believed, and repented. Second, many people refused to listen, refused to hear, refused to believe, and refused to repent. Indeed, when the latter group saw the ministry success Jesus was having, they resented it. They got mad when people’s lives were changed (Matthew 12:13-14; 21:15-6; Mark 3:6; Luke 5:21; 6:11; 13:14; John 5:16). They publicly claimed that God could not be behind the success of Jesus’ ministry and blasphemed the Holy Spirit in the process (Matthew 12:24-37; Mark 3:22-30; Luke 11:15-20; John 7:20; 10:19-21). All Jesus could do was weep (Matthew 11:20–24). In truth, the spiritually blind and the spiritually deaf didn’t like how Jesus was achieving his ministerial success and so rejected the legitimacy of his results.

Now I attended Fellowship Church for a number of years. I served in their ministries and went through their New Member’s Class. I participated in their Small Groups. I got to know and became friends with their pastors and staff. I’ve read Ed Young’s books. I’ve read interviews where he explains his methodology and the Biblical basis for it. I’ve listened and seen countless numbers of his sermons. The Spirit spoke to me in a very clear and decisive way through one of his sermons. I’ve attended numerous baptisms at Fellowship. I’ve heard numerous sermons on repentance and seen numerous people repent. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Yet, the accusers haven’t seen or heard. Indeed, they refuse to do so. They claim either that they don’t need to know the reason for Young’s methodology or that he is lying about his intentions for employing it. They look at the results of Fellowship Church’s ministry (2,000 baptisms a year) and claim it is illegitimate and, therefore, not from God. What is more, the hate of Ed Young is now so blind, that in order to delegitimize the success of his methodology, some are having to result to questioning whether Jesus actually knew what he was doing when he used similar methods.

Now why is this important?

There is nothing wrong with critiquing someone’s theology or methodology. I do so myself. See here, here, and here. Yet, if one is going to do so, 1) you better have adequate knowledge to do so, and 2) you better not blaspheme the Holy Spirit in the process.

In truth, my defense of Ed Young’s methodology is not a defense of Ed Young himself. He doesn’t need defending. The spiritually blind and the spiritually deaf are not hampering the effectiveness of his ministry. Rather, I defend his methodology because I am absolutely dedicated to the Gospel and want to see the advance of the mission to evangelize, to disciple, and to subject the powers under Christ’s lordship. That’s the mission. That’s the goal. So when I see fellow Christians (not unbelievers!) denigrating a methodology that is actually achieving the goals of the Kingdom of God in a spectacular fashion, yes, I’m going to speak up for the Gospel. I want to see missional success in ministry, and I want others to use what is actually working to achieve that success. What I'm seeing is not honest critique from knowledgeable individuals, but Christian leaders wallowing in their ignorance and ministerial failure with mockery while claiming the results of God’s work is invalid. Such behavior would be more shocking if it wasn’t so common. People forget how much many fundamentalist and fundamentalist leaders despised Billy Graham and his ministerial success. They accused him of worldliness, ecumenicalism, universalism, and being popular. They looked at how he was respected by the world, how he was able draw large crowds, how was able to grab people’s attention with his methodology, how we was able to evangelize thousands, and they claimed his work was illegitimate. They were blind and deaf to what God was doing.

So, yes, Jesus’ intent was to grab attention so that he could speak he truth (Matthew 13:10-17). He did so in order that people would either open their eyes in repentance or blind themselves to judgment.