The latter and other verses are used by skeptics to charge Jesus with hyposcrisy, and to accuse Jesus of cowardice and lacking conviction of the sort predicated in Luke 12:4.

This is an instance of confused categories. Dennis McKinsey, for example, interprets Luke 12:4 to mean that one should "display character and fortitude by having the courage and stamina to stand up fro your convictions in the face of adversity." But even granting that this is a correct exegesis - and it is not - how does it prohibit escaping persecution or death when it is possible to do so? If Jesus had given up his convictions to avoid death, that would be another matter, but none of the verses cited by McKinsey show this. (In the 113th issue of the BE newsletter, McKinsey insisted that "Because of fear [Jesus] exercised good judgment and fled. Fear is certainly present. Otherwise, why did he flee?" One wonders how McKinsey knows that fear was "certainly present". It doesn't require fear to get out of the way of a rolling boulder; just common sense. If the boulder is far off, and you see it coming, you don't need to be fearful to deduce, "If I stay here, I will be crushed. It would be a good idea to move." McKinsey, who accuses those who propose this solution, charges them with trying to "shift attention away from the word 'fear' and toward the words you prefer, 'wisdom' and 'good judgment.'," saying that "Whether [Jesus] exercised good or bad judgment is irrelevant." In fact, it is McKinsey who is manipulatively shifting attention away from the fact that he is essentially claiming to be able to read minds over the centuries simply for the sake of preserving himself from error. Unless he can prove that Jess' reactions involved fear with certainty, he has not fulfilled his burden of proof as one alleging contradiction.)