Pay No Attention to the Dead Man Behind the Curtain

'
Background
Once sentenced to His fate, Jesus carried the cross to His own crucifixion, at least according to John. The other Gospels suggest that a man named Simon carried it for Him.

While hanging on the cross, Jesus possibly granted Salvation to one of the two thieves who were crucified at the same time as Him; "possibly" because Luke alone recorded this forgiveness of the repentant thief, while Matthew and Mark record that both thieves mocked Jesus instead. Then the sun stopped shining for three hours; which is an event unsubstantiated by John, or by resources outside of the Bible, or by physics, but we are talking about miracles here.

Pay No Attention to the Dead Man Behind the Curtain

Jesus died. Like everyone else will experience, His mortal body stopped its life-sustaining functions. Of course, it was only a partial death for Him, because His spirit went on living, even before His body was resurrected. Unlike anyone else, Jesus' death was accompanied by miracles as He took His last breath. Let us take a fateful look at this moment of death.

We will examine Matthew 27:50-53, Mark 15:37-38, Luke 23:45-46, and John 19:30. This time, we will begin with John.

John 19:30 goes like this:

When He had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. NIV

It was a quiet, solemn release. Jesus' work was done, for now, so, with a bow of His head, He shed His mortal body. It was an understated, yet powerful scene. Even beautiful. Now let us turn to the Synoptic Gospels to see how they will mess it up, beginning with Mark, who was the source for the other two.

In Mark 15:37-38 we find:

With a loud cry, Jesus breathed His last. The curtain of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom. NIV

So, no quiet, solemn release here. Instead, Jesus yelled. There are no details of what this cry was, so we can only guess, and given that it was the moment of death, a reasonable guess would certainly be something along the lines of a guttural gasp of pain or anguish.

The curtain of the Temple... what curtain are they talking about? Well, we have dig a little into the background to understand this. The layout of the Temple was strongly inspired from the mobile version of the Temple called the Tabernacle. With the Tabernacle, a perimeter fence of curtains established the Tabernacle grounds, or courtyard, where the altar for burnt offerings was on display and put into use.

Inside that courtyard was a tent, sometimes referred to as the Tent of Meeting, and that tent was subdivided into two chambers.

The first tent chamber, known as the Holy Place, where the golden lampstand, altar of incense, and table of the showbread were kept according to God's instructions.

Separating the first chamber from the second was heavy, decorative, purple curtain (Exodus 26:31-33).

The second tent chamber, known as the Most Holy Place (a.k.a. Holy of Holies), contained (among other things) the Ark of the Covenant and the Atonement Cover (a.k.a. Mercy Seat), and hosted the very presence of God. Literally, God was there, which is why prayers were directed towards it (Psalm 28:2), and why in Leviticus 16:2 we read:

The Lord said to Moses: “Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. For I will appear in the cloud over the atonement cover. NIV

This verse was obviously written with no intent of the High Priest having a close, personal relationship with God, as God would kill him if he showed up at non-appointed times. Anyway, back to the torn curtain...

The curtain which Mark referenced is undoubtedly the curtain separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place. While nearly every other part of the facade of the Tabernacle and Tent of Meeting were replaced by stone or wood, this curtain remained integral to the Temple design. So ripping open the only vale between God and the people would be both symbolic of removal of the barrier between God and man, as well as a more literal indication that God had left the building.

There is a big problem here though... how did anyone know about the curtain; that it was ripped, that the rip corresponded to Jesus' time of death, and that the direction of the rip was top to bottom?

It was torn in two, so to know the direction of the tear (other than with the assistance of modern CSI technology) would have been impossible without an eye witness, but that seems unlikely. Access to this holy place was very, very restricted, thanks largely to verses like Exodus 28:43:

Aaron and his sons must wear them whenever they enter the Tent of Meeting or approach the altar to minister in the Holy Place, so that they will not incur guilt and die. "This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants." NIV

With this restricted access, and factoring that access is not permitted at non-appointed times, the chances of there being a witness to this event are statistically very small.

Yet even assume that there was a witness or two, we still have the fact that the witnesses would have been the religious elite, and would have been under no obligation, and certainly no motivation, to reveal to anyone that the curtain had been torn, let alone in what direction the tearing took place. Releasing such easily-concealed information would have been damning evidence against themselves. So, again, how is it that Mark knows anything about this curtain?

Now we come to Matthew. Matthew polished up Mark's verbiage a little more that usual, as Matthew 27:50 reveals:

And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He gave up His spirit. NIV

The "again" could convey a few different things. Least likely, but still possible, is inference of just some loud, nondescript utterance. Instead it may have been an intelligible cry, similar but different to the "Why have you forsaken me?" cry in Matthew 27:46, but for some unknown reason the exact words not recorded. Also possible is that Matthew intended it to mean that Jesus made the exact same cry as in Matthew 27:46.

Whatever the content of that scream, it was a far cry from being a quiet passing portrayed by John. Yet, conspicuously, we find in Matthew the "He gave up His spirit", as seen in John. Given that John's lack of mentioning a cry would not guarantee that there was not one, and with other queues from across the Gospels (at least for this particular section), believers can quite reasonably claim that these different versions appear to be be describing the same event, which enhances their credibility... at least until we consider what Matthew recorded soon thereafter.

In Matthew 27:51, the Temple curtain is torn, top to bottom. No surprise there, but Matthew also aggregated onto the story that there was an earthquake at that moment too, one powerful enough to split rocks. And in Matthew 27:52-53, we find this remarkable addition:

The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. NIV

This mini-zombie-apocalypse is not mentioned in any other Gospel. As implied above, an argument from silence is not usually a strong one, and can never be taken as solid proof, but are degrees of strength based on the circumstances of the situation. We are not talking about whether or not some speech snippet was recorded, which was essentially unessential to the story here.

Sure, the Jesus'-death-synchronized earthquake could qualify as simply just another miracle which adds trivially to the story. However, resurrected holy people is incredibly significant, possibly even more than that of Jesus! Why?

Consider this: God made man by scooping up some dirt and blowing into it (Genesis 2:7). Any God that could do that could easily bring Himself, as Jesus, back to life in the flesh. Other than it being a miracle by our standards, it is no big deal. In fact, such a God could easily bring anyone back to life.

On the other hand, the resurrection of these saints represents the fulfillment of God's promise of resurrection for the rest of us. So even more than Jesus' resurrection, the resurrection of these holy people demonstrated the veracity of God's offer of Salvation through Jesus.

The absence of this resurrection anecdote from the other Gospels, which Matthew himself barely included with a single verse, creates one of the strongest types of arguments from silence that there can be. This is because, based on the implications of the content described above, it would have been extremely advantageous to include in the other Gospel accounts, as it both reassures Salvation and it could be used to explain to those who had heard about or seen these resurrected holy people why that had occurred.

And that is just it. It probably did not occur. It is not mentioned in any other Gospel, nor in the rest of the New Testament. When you read passages like Acts 4, where Peter and John are apprehended for preaching about resurrection of the dead, their obvious, go-to defensive evidence would have been to point to these holy people coming back to life because of Jesus, but we do not find that, not even as a footnote to their speech.

OK, enough about the zombies. Let us wrap this study up with a quick look at Luke, the editor. Luke had the curtain torn in two also, but had it happen just before Jesus' death and wisely dropped the "top to bottom" directionality. Then in Luke 23:46 we read the famous line:

Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit My spirit." When He had said this, He breathed His last. NIV

I have to applaud Luke here. Other than Jesus screaming this sentence, which seems unnecessary unless God is hard of hearing, Luke really portrayed Jesus in a beautiful moment of submission to God's Plan, but, in turn, that also portrayed Jesus as being subservient to God. So it is one more verse to muddy the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

About the Image
The image is of a triptych depicting Saint Anthony the Great (a.k.a. Anthony Abbot), with the third panel illustrating his meeting with a centaur.  You cannot make this stuff up.  :-)

Jesus Is My Co-Pilate

'
Background
Judas left Jesus and the other Disciples to enact his betrayal. After meeting with the authorities, he led them back to where Jesus was. Judas then identified Jesus to the authorities by kissing Him (Matthew, Mark), unless Jesus stopped the kiss from happening (Luke), or instead Jesus identified Himself and for arrest as soon as the authorities arrived (John).

After the arrest, the Priests struggled to find any charges against Jesus, but they ultimately decided that Jesus had blasphemed by calling Himself the Son of God. So they bound Him up, and sent Him to Pilate. (Before {Luke 22:63-65} and/or after {Matthew 26:67, Mark 14:65}, that trial, Jesus was mocked and beat by the soldiers who had custody of Him.)

Meanwhile, Peter, who had been waiting outside the High Priest's house, ended up denying three times that he had known Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:56-62, John 18:17-27). That happened just as Jesus had predicted.

Jesus Is My Co-Pilate

Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Besides the more mundane administrative affairs of state, one crucial role is ensuring that the rule of law is enforced. Without law, you have chaos. You might as well be ruling cats. Law requires some form of justice. Let us take a look at the justice rendered by arguably the most infamous prefect in history; Pontius Pilate.

The Priests had bound Jesus, and delivered Him to Pilate for ultimate justice. Like any good minister of justice, Pilate questioned Jesus about His crimes. Well, not really. In this post, we will cover that inquisition captured in Matthew 27:1-14, Mark 15:1-5, Luke 23:1-16, and John 18:28-38.

We will start with the source, Mark. According to Mark, right after Jesus was handed over to Pilate (Mark 15:1), in Mark 15:2 we see this question and answer:

"Are you the King of the Jews?" asked Pilate.
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. NIV

This leaves us with the question of how Pilate came to think that Jesus should be called the "King of the Jews". As we know from last time, blaspheme was the charge against Jesus, so when did it come up that Jesus was a King?

Plus, there is the even bigger question of how this little snippet of dialog is recorded! There were no Disciple eye-witnesses here.

Anyway, after that question, the Chief Priests accused Jesus of "many things", and Pilate was amazed that Jesus gave no reply to these multiple charges against Him (Mark 15:3-5). What are these "many" accusations, when there was only the charge of blaspheme against Him? Who knows? Of course, again, we should also ask who knows that there were actually "many" accusations, given the lack of Jesus-aligned eye-witnesses?

That is it. With that paltry investigation, Pilate was allegedly able to discern both that Jesus had been arrested out of jealousy (Mark 15:9-10) and that Jesus was innocent (Mark 15:14). That would make for a pretty shoddy episode of CSI!

Seriously though, while we should not assume that all of the pertinent information about the investigation is recorded here, we do have a lack of details which are critical to Pilate reaching a judgement on Jesus, which is odd, to say the least. It is as though the story-teller could not think of a crafty way to reasonably resolve the dialog in Jesus' favor, and so chose to leave a gap instead.

Matthew 27:1-14, with some clarifying word changes, is essentially identical to Mark's account, except that Matthew aggregated into that passage the parallel account of Judas repenting his act of betrayal, throwing his money back to the Priests, and then hanging himself in shame.

Luke, of course, was a better editor than Matthew. While Luke missed the lack-of-eye-witnesses issue, he fixed the issue with the out-of-nowhere question from Pilate about Jesus being a King by having the Priests make their accusations first, as Luke 23:2 shows:

And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king." NIV

So now we know why Pilate asked Jesus about being a King, but Luke created some other problems. For starters, where is the blaspheme charge? Next, why are the Priests accusing Jesus of opposing taxes when He did not oppose taxes? Of course, this does paint the Priests as being all the more evil, as they were willing to distort the truth in order to have Jesus killed by appealing to Roman law as opposed to God's Law.

Yet with that fix, it makes Pilate's investigation appear all-the-more inadequate, as Pilate goes straight from asking Jesus if He is King (Luke 23:3) to declaring Jesus' innocence (Luke 23:4).

Luke also added in more detail. After Pilate (miraculously?) found no basis for charges against Jesus, the Priests mentioned how Jesus had been stirring up people all the way from Galilee. Galilee was Herod's district, who just happened to be in Jerusalem, so Pilate sent Jesus to Herod for investigation. Herod asked Jesus "many" questions, and the Priests accused Jesus in front of Herod, but Jesus gave no replies. So Herod sent Jesus (with an elegant robe) back to Pilate (Luke 23:5-11). Pilate gathered the Priests and the people together (Luke 23:12-13) to make the public (and therefore witness-able) declaration we find in Luke 23:13-15:

and [Pilate] said to them, "You brought me this man (Jesus) as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined Him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against Him. Neither has Herod, for he sent Him back to us; as you can see, He has done nothing to deserve death." NIV

It is strange that this public declaration, including the mention Herod's judgement, is not covered by any of the other three Gospels. (In fact, Herod is not mentioned at all in John; not for the Massacre of the Innocents, for the beheading of John the Baptist, or for his role in examining Jesus.)

Even more strange is how Luke later spun Herod's involvement in Jesus' death. Referencing the first couple of verses of Psalm 2 as "prophesy", in Acts 4:25-28 we see:

"You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of Your servant, our father David:

‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against His anointed one.’

Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed. They did what Your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." NIV

So somehow Pilate and Herod finding Jesus to be innocent adds up to conspiring against Jesus! That is ludicrous! This is yet another instance were we find the truth stretched to fulfill a prophesy.

If Luke is ludicrous, John is laughable. There, Pilate's investigation of Jesus happens inside the palace with no eye-witnesses, because the Jews did not want to sully themselves on the holiday (John 18:28). So Pilate went out and asked the Priests what charges they had against Jesus, to which they responded that Jesus was a criminal, without giving any specific charge (John 18:29-30).

Pilate then did what any Roman law keeper would do: he told the Priests to judge Jesus according to Jewish Law (John 18:31)! Ha! That seems extremely unlikely, but it certainly is possible, especially if Pilate was just trying to get rid of this annoyance so early in the morning. Anyway, the Priests objected because they did not have the authority to conduct executions (John 18:32).

So Pilate went back inside the palace to question Jesus. And his first question? You guessed it. From out of nowhere, Pilate asked Jesus if He was the King of the Jews (John 18:33). Instead of Jesus essentially answering "yup" as in the other Gospels, we get more dialog (recorded without eye-witnesses) of Jesus explaining that His Kingdom was "not of this world" and "from another place", and that people "on the side of truth" listen to Him (John 18:34-37).

Based on that, ahem, painstakingly thorough line of questioning, Pilate asked "What is truth?" and then went out to tell the Priests that he finds that Jesus is innocent (John 18:38).

Lacking any sense of jurisprudence, in all four of the Gospels, Pilate is portrayed as absolutely inept at getting to the truth of the matter and thereby rendering effective justice. Jesus is declared innocent with only the most superficial and indirect line of questioning. Although many Christians like to vilify Pilate, in a way, he is a model of Jesus. Not that Pilate was a sin-free self-offering of God, but that it is Jesus who will allegedly serve as the mediator of God's wrath, and His ultimate qualifying question determining your guilt or innocence will be of the most superficial nature: did you believe in Me?

Judas Fish, Part 4: The Aftermath

'
Background
This background will run a little differently than most posts, focusing on the background of Judas Iscariot, as we wrap up his story and this series. It is a story which has been fishy from the beginning...

From the time when the Twelve Disciples/Apostles are introduced to us, Judas Iscariot was labeled a traitor (Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16). In the Synoptic Gospels, that is all you know about Judas until he actively began to betray Jesus, but in John, Jesus implied that Judas would betray Him long before that (John 6:70-71) and Judas was branded both a thief and a traitor when he was given the dishonor of being the one who complained about the waste of money in anointing Jesus with expensive perfume (John 12:4-6).

When Judas allegedly initiated the betrayal of Jesus with the Chief Priests, the Gospels are unclear as to whether he did so on his own, or was controlled by Satan, or was merely influenced by Satan. Even more suspiciously, the Gospel writers recorded more than they could have possibly known regarding the conspiracy, including timing and precise details of this clandestine meeting, as well as Satan's level of influence. Conspicuously, one of the known unknowables is the sum of money exchanged for the betrayal; a sum that conveniently tied into a prophesy. (As usual, this "prophesy" did not hold up to scrutiny when its context was considered.)

During the Last Supper, Jesus revealed that one of the Disciples would betray Him. According to Matthew and John, Judas was explicitly identified as the traitor, but only John records Judas leaving the dinner party at that point, while the other Gospels imply through silence that he stayed with them. Another prophesy referenced Jesus' betrayal by a trusted friend, despite the fact that, according to John, Jesus never trusted Judas. Also according to John, Satan entered Judas once he was identified as the traitor, and yet the other Disciples are portrayed as being clueless as to why Judas left the dinner.

When the hour came, Judas sprang into action, leading men to Jesus to arrest Him. For some strange reason, Judas needed to identify Jesus to the arresting party, despite all of Jesus' miracles and public teaching sessions, and he did so with a kiss... at least according to Matthew and Mark. Luke had Jesus stop the kiss from happening, and John has no reference of a kiss whatsoever, but instead has the arresting party fall down in reaction to Jesus' willingness to let Himself be arrested. In the scuffle, or lack thereof, one of the Disciples cuts an ear off of the High Priest's servant, but only in Luke is there a mention of Jesus miraculously healing of that ear, and Luke curiously neglects to provide any details of the reactions to that miracle.

Sorting through all of these inconsistencies makes the whole story of Judas as the evil traitor seem a bit fishy. Let us see what fleshes out as we follow the aftermath of this Pisces plot.

This is Part 4 of a four part series entitled "Judas Fish." The series entries are:

• Part 1: The Setup
• Part 2: Betrayer Revealed
• Part 3: The Kiss of Death
• Part 4: The Aftermath

Judas Fish, Part 4: The Aftermath

Anyone who is familiar with Christianity knows the aftermath of Jesus' arrest; the trial, rejection by the crowd, hanging on the cross, death, and resurrection. However, not nearly as many people are familiar with the story of what happened to the man who betrayed Jesus; Judas. So, what did happen to Judas after the arrest? That depends on who you ask...

Do not "ask" the Gospels of Mark and John, because they do have an answer. And why should they? After all, if Judas was really a traitor, how and why would any of the Disciples know about his whereabouts and activities after the arrest? He was no longer with them. All that we know from Mark 14:21 (copied word-for-word in Matthew 26:24 and partially in Luke 22:22) is that his fate would not have been not good:

"The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." NIV

Of course, not knowing what happened to the man who was responsible for the death of the Savior is not satisfying to our sense of justice! How could Judas have turned against an innocent man and his Salvation?!?! Well, do not worry. Justice was served... possibly. That really depends on your idea of justice.

In Matthew 27:1-10, you will find one type of "justice". Seeing Jesus arrested finally made it all clear to Judas, as we discover from Matthew 27:3-5:

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That’s your responsibility."
Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. NIV

Judas repented. That "evil" man had a change of heart, one that pained him so much that he would rather be dead than to live with memory of his incredible failing. It was the ultimate contrition, as in how Psalm 51:17 renders it:

My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise. NIV

Yet if we are to believe Jesus' words noted above about Judas' fate, God did despise Judas' repentant heart, despite the words of Isaiah 59:20:

"The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins," declares the Lord NIV

and Jesus' own words in Luke 15:7:

"I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." NIV

To have Judas repent, but still be punished for his sins, does not mesh well with the message of Salvation. Matthew created quite a paradox in punishing a repentant sinner, even with a sinner as "vile" as Judas.

That is not the only issue Matthew created either. Matthew 27:6-10 records the dilemma the Chief Priests had with what to do with the money Judas had thrown at them. They chose to buy a field with it in which to bury foreigners which they called "The Field of Blood" as a reference to the blood money which bought it; an action which had greater significance than they realized, as Matthew 27:9-10 tells us:

Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me." NIV

If you search Jeremiah, you will not find this prophesy at all, nor in the entire Bible, yet Matthew quotes this as if it is in there. Matthew was likely using some corrupted version of the Scriptures. Yet even in that degenerate version, like we see in too many other NT prophesy references, Matthew ignores the verse's own context. The verse clearly states that they used the money to buy a field per God's command, but the Chief Priests were under no such direction!

The closest reference in the "legitimate" version of Jeremiah is Jeremiah 32:6-9, where someone is fulfilling a prophesy and buying a field for silver, but there is no blood money, no potter, and the price was seventeen silver pieces. The closest reference in all of the Bible comes from Zechariah 11:12-13

I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So
they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price
at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them
into the House of the Lord to the potter. NIV

Not surprisingly, this prophesy, too, misses the mark for many reasons, including the lack of a field purchase, but at least there is a potter, a thirty-piece silver payment, and those pieces of silver being thrown into the Temple.

So Matthew has issues, even without considering who was around to record Judas' conversation and money throwing. What about Luke? Luke does not actually mention anything in his Gospel about Judas' fate. Instead, we have to go to Acts, which he also had a hand in authoring.

In Acts 1:15-26, after Jesus went up into Heaven (Acts 1:9-11, because we all know that Heaven is "up", right?), the eleven remaining Disciples decide that the leadership gap left by Judas' departure should be filled. Acts 1:18-19 revealed Judas' fate:

(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) NIV

This is quite a different story than the one told by Matthew; one that drips with the blood of vengeance. Judas does not repent. Nor does he give back his ill-gotten wages, but rather uses them to buy a field. In a case of sweet irony, Judas tripped and fell in that same field, incurring a mortal injury in that "accident". Contrary to Matthew, Acts claims that it is Judas' blood, not Jesus' blood, which gives the field its name.

Why is the account in Acts so different than Matthew? Well, to fulfill prophesy, of course! We see in Acts 1:20:

"For," said Peter, "it is written in the Book of Psalms:
'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’
and,
'May another take his place of leadership.'" NIV

Ah, we have two different prophetic verses to explore. What will we find?

The first one comes from Psalm 69:25. Psalm 69 is essentially a prayer request to God. Looking at Psalm 69:24-26 for more context, we find:

Pour out your wrath on them; let your fierce anger overtake them.
May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents.
For they persecute those you wound and talk about the pain of those you hurt. NIV

First, let us consider that these verses are asking God to apply His wrath, not to change hearts and minds for Salvation.

Next, we see that there is a pronoun agreement error between Peter's version (his) and the actual psalm (their). Maybe that is acceptable if we include Judas as one of a larger group, but that is unlikely.

Even more significantly, we find that Peter changed the ending of the verse he quoted; from "in their tents" to "in it". People "in their tents" may refer to laborers, militia, or family. In other words, the prayer is about God making "them" less prosperous. Meanwhile, Peter's "in it" alters the intent, just making it about the land being barren.

Finally, it is amusing to note that the very next verse states that the reason God should apply His wrath to "them" has nothing to do with betrayal, but rather involves mocking those who God is hurting! Yes, God hurts people purposefully. The Father will spank you! ;-)

How about the next prophesy (using that term loosely)? It comes from Psalm 109:8. Psalm 109 is yet another prayer for wrath. Looking at Psalm 109:6-8 for expanded context, we find:

Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy; let an accuser [a.k.a. Satan] stand at his right hand.
When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him.
May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership. NIV

Strangely enough, in Psalm 109:6, "an accuser" is called to oppose this target of wrath. That "accuser" is the same word you find interpreted as Satan. In other words, the prayer is for Satan to oppose this person; for to Satan oppose Judas, as if Satan is working for God... That is perfectly consistent with the Old Testament portrayal of Satan, but less consistent with Christianity. Anyway, Satan did not oppose Judas, but rather (possibly) spurred him on in the act of betrayal of Jesus.

The bulk of Psalm 109 is spiteful, and not at all consistent with turning the other cheek and offering forgiveness. For example, Psalm 109:10 calls for the man's children to become beggars, and Psalm 109:14 asks that his father and his mother also have their sins never forgiven them.

Speaking of spiteful, and of Judas' leadership opening being replaced, we see in Acts1:25 an interesting allusion:

"...to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” NIV

Where exactly does Judas belong? As discussed previously, Luke was a firm believer in Hell, as in the fire-and-brimstone, eternal torture version. So, to Luke, that is where a traitor like Judas belongs.

At least, that may be somewhat of a fitting end for Judas if he had not repented, if his story had not been so inconsistent and self-contradictory, and if the referenced prophesies had not been cherry-picked out of context and altered. In other words, if we had any kind of notion of what the truth was back then, then maybe we could make a judgement of Judas' worthiness for Hell...

But, wait a moment. Maybe we do have some information. Maybe there was a Freudian slip somewhere in Scriptures to reveal a hint at the truth. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, we find:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all He appeared to [Paul] also, as to one abnormally born. NIV

Paul records that Jesus appeared to the Twelve after His resurrection, not the Eleven. Judas was with the other Disciples, which is exceedingly odd for a man who had hung himself prior to Jesus getting hung on the cross... unless the whole, rotten, fishy story of the betrayal was made up.

This makes me wonder: What if Judas' betrayal was not of Jesus, but of the Disciples? What if Jesus was never resurrected, but instead His Disciples came up with that idea, and at some later point Judas refused to go along with that scheme?

Or, what if an imposter claimed to be Jesus resurrected, and, while the other Disciples bought off on him, Judas remained skeptical? That latter suggestion actually has some strength to it, as the Disciples and others are recorded as having difficulty recognizing Jesus after the resurrection (Matthew 28:16-17, Luke 24:13-35, John 20:14, John 21:4). In other words, what if Judas was not as much a traitor than a whistle blower, who was killed mafia-style for becoming a threat to the "family" of believers? That sure makes more sense to me than what is being passed off as the "truth" here.

Resurrecting a Comedy of Errors

'
Background
In Jerusalem, Jesus had angered some of the religious elite with some only-slightly veiled condemnations, so they had tried to get Jesus arrested through entrapment. They tried to get Him to say that you should not pay taxes to the Romans, but Jesus was too cunning to fall prey to them. Yet another prominent sect was waiting in the shadows to try to make Jesus into a fool; the Sadducees.

Resurrecting a Comedy of Errors

Back in the time of Jesus, scrolls were a luxury. It was not at all like today, where the Bible is the best selling book that is never read, where Christian houses often have multiple Bibles. Back then, the synagogues had handwritten copies of handwritten scrolls, and they were treasured. That made it unlikely that the common folk, if they could read at all, would get much of a chance to read the Scripture for themselves. And that means that errors in Scriptural quotations could easily sneak in unnoticed, especially in a new breakaway sect with even more limited resources, as we will see.

In Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-25, and Luke 20:27-38, there is a scene where some Sadducees try to embarrass Jesus with a difficult question. The Sadducees were a Jewish sect with a division from the other believers in that they found no evidence of resurrection in the Scriptures; taking any apparent reference to an afterlife to be metaphorical.

Stepping back to an earlier post for a moment, we had studied Deuteronomy 25:5-10, where a if a man died without producing a son, then one of that man's brothers must marry that man's widow, and the first son to be born of that union would then count as part of the dead man's lineage.

The Sadducees capitalized on this divine law to craft their challenge to resurrection. They asked:

If a man died without having children, and one of his brothers married his widow, per the instructions Moses gave, but the whole scenario repeated itself such that the woman had been married to each of seven brothers in succession without ever having children, whose wife will she be at the resurrection? (My paraphrase)

Jesus gives a two-part answer; first dealing with marriage of the resurrected, and next dealing with resurrection in general. As usual, it seems that Mark provided the source material for Matthew and Luke, and the other two accounts are similar but different, so let us begin with a focus on Mark. Mark 12:24-25 has the first part of the reply:

Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in Heaven." NIV

The Sadducees had assumed, as nearly every Christian I know assumes, that the relationships we have in this life will carry on through the resurrection, and so they had simply asked "whose wife will she be," not who will she then marry. In Jesus reply, we see that there will be no marriage at all for the resurrection. Once you die, you will never be married again, even to the spouse you had while alive.

That is an interesting, and perhaps unpleasant, concept to grasp. So much for the sanctity of marriage, as it is not sanctified enough to endure to the next life. That puts a whole new spin on the common marriage vow of "'til death do us part!" The person who you likely had the closest relationship with when you were living, a relationship endowed with a special title and significance, will become nothing more than just another soul when you are resurrected. However, this is consistent with Jesus' other teachings of how you should forsake everyone except Jesus, including your wife and children.

Jesus scolded the Sadducees for not knowing the Scriptures, but there is precious little information regarding either angels or marriage after the resurrection in the Old Testament. In fact, the information that is there seemingly contradicts Jesus' own words!

Jesus claims that the angels do not marry, yet we find in Genesis 6:1-4 that:

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. NIV

The "sons of God" is a reference to angels (see Job 38:7), and these angels interbred with humans, creating a new race called Nephilim who were endowed with super-human size (Numbers 13:33) and ability ("heroes of old"). But, to be fair, Jesus did say "like the angels in Heaven," so maybe the angels who came down to earth to mate with our women do not count. ;-)

Then there is prophesy to consider as well on this matter of marriage. Starting from Ezekiel 40 and continuing through to the end of the book, the "son of man" (meaning Ezekiel, but also a title Jesus was fond of calling Himself, likely due to its use in Psalm 80:17) is shown God's future Temple plan for Jerusalem, from where God will be enthroned and live with the Israelites (Jews) forever (Ezekiel 43:7). Besides having an inconvenient list of rules for animal sacrifice in this yet-to-come Temple, in Ezekiel 44:22 we see:

[The priests] must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests. NIV

So if we have a prophesy of a forever-enduring Temple where priests will marry, then it appears that Jesus does not "know the Scriptures" either, because men obviously will be marrying for eternity! Furthermore, this prophesy suggests that divorce and death ("widows") will continue forever too! This is not good for Christianity, is it?

Now, on to Mark 12:26-27, where we find in the next part of Jesus' reply:

"Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!" NIV

Well, lucky us! The "in the account of the bush" tells us where we can find the verse that Jesus quoted, as it is a reference to the burning bush that Moses spoke to in Exodus 3. In particular, Exodus 3:6 is that verse:

Then [God] said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. NIV

It appears that Jesus misquoted His own Father, completely leaving out the phrase "the God of your father."

As strange as that is, we should take a moment to consider that the verse which Jesus picked from the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) as obvious evidence of resurrection that the Sadducees were missing is ambiguous at best. Jesus is making the case that because God said "I am... ... the God of Abraham, etc." that it implies that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still living through the use of the present tense "am." However, it is equally valid to interpret that "am" as being the same God that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had worshiped, neither confirming nor denying a continuation of the life of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Fortunately, we do have some context to clarify, but it points against resurrection. In Exodus 6:2-4, we find:

God also said to Moses, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by My Name the Lord I did not make Myself fully known to them. I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they resided as foreigners. NIV

This suggests that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still do not fully know God, which would be difficult if they had been already resurrected. Also note that God's covenant with them was for the land of Canaan, not for eternal life.

In Exodus 32:13, we see Moses pleading with God to:

"Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom You swore by your own Self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’" NIV

If Abraham, Isaac, and Israel were not dead, why would Moses need to remind God about them? Of course, we could also ask why would God need to be reminded about anything! This theme of God's remembrance of these patriarchs is also seen in Leviticus 26:42, Deuteronomy 9:27, and Psalm 105:42.

Finally, in Isaiah 63:16, we find the prophet claiming:

"But you [God] are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your Name." NIV

If Abraham and Israel (Jacob) were alive then, they certainly would know the Israelites (Jews). This is a statement of contrast. The patriarchs Abraham and Israel had been long dead and many generations have passed, so they could not acknowledge the Jews as their offspring, but God is their eternal Father, and therefore can acknowledge them.

Once again we see the evidence stacking up against Jesus, suggesting that Jesus is the one who does not "know the Scriptures."

In closing, we should quickly examine the differences we find in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew's account is essentially unchanged from Mark's text, with one important exception. There are slight rewordings and several places where Matthew and Mark match word-for-word, but there is a curious omission in Matthew. Above we noted how Jesus misquoted the verse from Exodus from the burning bush episode. It is possible that Matthew double-checked the text of Exodus, but could not find the quote. If so, that may be why we find no reference to Moses or the burning bush in Matthew 22:31-32, just a reference to reading "what God said to you."

Luke, normally being more of a careful editor than Matthew, may have realized some issues with Jesus' reply. While Luke 20:34-38 is similar, it is substantially different, with many words added. In court, being that Matthew and Mark agree so well, we would likely throw out Luke's testimony as being inaccurate because it is so different. Yet there are key phrases which Luke retained from Mark, such as "will neither marry nor be given in marriage," "like the angels," "in the account of the bush," and "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Luke's primary differences involve emphasizing the worthiness of those who will be resurrected, calling the worthy one "God's children," and possibly adding another layer of mystery by saying that "for to [God] all are alive." The parallelism the "God's children" and the account from Genesis with the Nephilim is amusing, to say the least. The "to [God] all are alive" makes it seem like everyone is alive in a state of God's mind, while not in actuality. Like they have the yet unrealized potential to be resurrected. Perhaps the funniest difference is the reference to the quote from Exodus from the burning bush episode. Luke has truncated the quote so that the "I am" is removed, making it no longer a misquote. However, Luke attributes those words to Moses, not to God! In Luke 20:37 we see:

But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' NIV

Wrong! God was calling Himself that, as we have seen above. What is even funnier is that Acts is thought to be penned by the same author as Luke, and yet in Acts 7:32 we find another misquote of the same Exodus verse:

‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’ Moses trembled with fear and did not dare to look. NIV

This time, Luke dropped "the God of" for Isaac and Jacob.

With this many errors made, where even Jesus Himself misquotes and contradicts Scripture, how can we possibly accept that this is accurate testimony of God becoming a man for the sake of our Salvation? It is funny just how much we believe which we should not.

Verses Out of Rhythm

'
Background
Before sending the Twelve Apostles out on their first missionary trip, to spread the Gospel to the Jews, Jesus prepared them with instructions. Mark's and Luke's instructions were brief, but Matthew's version has a chapter's worth of details. All three discussed how entire towns were to be condemned if they were not welcoming to the Good News. We continue our exploration of those instructions.

Verses Out of Rhythm

In a classic song by Simon and Garfunkel, called “The Dangling Conversation,” is a set of verses which go “Like a poem poorly written / we are verses out of rhythm / couplets out of rhyme / in syncopated time.” It is a sad song about a married couple, in that most intimate of relationships, yet completely out of tune with one another. Sadly, the Bible has similar verses in intimate relationship with each other, and yet are discordant as a fiddle and a gong, such as in the instructions which Jesus gave the Twelve Disciples for their first mission.

Matthew 10 is completely devoted to the instructions which Jesus had given the Apostles for the mission. In Matthew 10:18-20, Jesus told them that when they get brought before the local authorities, they do not have to worry about what to say, because God's Holy Spirit will speak through them. That seems like good news, but there are some discordant details in Matthew 10:18 which just do not make sense:

“On My account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.” NIV

For those of you who are somewhat familiar with the Bible, in considering this verse your mind may begin to wander to the book of Acts. There, starting with Acts 16 and continuing through to the end of the book, Paul is passed from authority to authority, including appearance in front of King Agrippa II, but hat is more than you should permit you mind to wander. Paul was not one of these Twelve Apostles, meaning that he was not one of the ones receiving these instructions from Jesus.

More significantly, however, is that Jesus had so limited the scope of this mission as to make the words of Matthew 10:18 impossible to fulfill at this time. In Matthew 10:5-6, we read:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." NIV

Jesus forbid His Disciples from going to the Gentiles or Samaritans. At most, they could have spoken with King Agrippa I (a.k.a. Herod Agrippa), but still they would fail to completely fulfill the words of Matthew 10:18 on this mission.

Matthew 10:18-20 is completely out of rhythm with the purpose of the instructions Jesus was providing at that time. Those verses would only make sense in a different context, one of general instruction to the Disciples to inform them of the future ahead instead of specific instructions for a particular mission which could never come to pass. Curiously enough, that is exactly how Luke 12 frames the conversation, with the bit about the Holy Spirit coming in at Luke 12:11-12.

What does this tell us? Nothing for sure. However, it suggests something very significant; that the author of Matthew was not an eyewitness, nor was it a tale directly originating from one eyewitness.

It suggests that the author of Matthew was an aggregator. The author “Matthew” was taking little snippets and anecdotes, and perhaps an early version of the Gospel of Mark, and combining these pieces into one conglomerate mass of a Gospel. Sometimes, Matthew did a pretty good job, like with the Sermon on the Mount (which, by the way, is probably why you do not find that epic sermon mentioned in any of the other Gospels, but rather find parts of it scattered elsewhere). Other times, like what we see here, his craftsmanship is less than adequate.

This, in turn, weakly suggests that the Gospel of Matthew is, at least in part, fictitious. Weakly, because it does not mean that each of those little snippets never happened despite their haphazard assembly into a Gospel. Yet if author of Matthew could not be concerned enough to consult actual eyewitness for the proper assembly, you have to wonder just how much scrutiny he applied to ensure the veracity of those episodes. Because of that, you should be skeptical of any doctrine which is exclusively held in the Gospel of Matthew.

Damnation by Association

'
Background
In the previous study, we observed how Jesus oddly told His disciples to pray to God to send more people to help in the harvest of souls, even though God (as Jesus, and being omniscient) already knew that more harvesters were needed. From there, Jesus sent out His Twelve Apostles to preach about the soon-coming Kingdom of God/Heaven to the Jews.

Damnation by Association

Sometimes, the place you choose to live can have dire consequences to your very life. Floods. Tornadoes. Earthquakes. Nuclear radiation. In an instant, your life as you know it can be changed forever, or even cease to be, all because of an unfortunate coincidence of where you are and where a disaster occurs. Did you realize that, Biblically speaking, the same holds true for the fate of your immortal soul? Let us take a close look at what Jesus told the Twelve Disciples when He was sending them out on a mission.

The missionary instructions for the Twelve Apostles are given in Matthew 10, Mark 6:7-13, and Luke 9:1-6. The mission objective? Spread the word to repent because the Kingdom of Heaven/God is near (Matthew 10:7, Mark 6:12, Luke 9:2). This first mission was to the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6).

Presumably to make these disciples more convincing to the Jews that they were indeed carrying God's message, Jesus grants them with the ability to heal sick people, resurrect the dead, clear up leprosy, and exorcise demons (Matthew 10:8).

Wait, what? Resurrect the dead? So twelve guys roamed the country bringing dead people back to life, and yet nobody, secular or otherwise, records this spectacle outside of the Bible? Even the Bible does not record any specific resurrections on this first mission. At best, you could claim Matthew 11:5 is a reference to these resurrections (although Luke 7:22 has Jesus say the same thing right after He had raised someone from the dead), but it still stands oddly in contrast that neither Mark nor Luke mentions the Apostles' ability to bring people back to life connected with this mission.

(The Gospel of John ignores this missionary story completely. Much, much later in the storyline, Acts 9:36-42 has Peter raise a girl from the dead and Acts 20:7-12 has Paul raise a young man from the dead, but no such resurrections are mentioned in any of the Epistles, and the power to raise the dead is not included in the list of spiritual gifts given in Romans 12:3-8 and 1 Corinthians 12:4-11.)

Back on task, here. Just a little later in the instructions, we find that Jesus told the Disciples that, upon entering a town, they should try to find someone willing to let them live at their house for a while. If they are not successful, they are to condemn the entire household, or possibly even the entire town. Mark 6:10-11 and Luke 9:4-5 too briefly explain what Matthew 10:14-15 divulges in more detail:

“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the Day of Judgement than for that town.” NIV

In Jesus' words, God had a special plan of torment for the households and towns which rejected the Apostles. Keep in mind, this was not every single person in the town rejecting the Apostles, nor every single person in the household being unwilling to listening to the Gospel. The men had the say over admission of household guests, and any small group of men from the town could have started persecuting an Apostle, causing him to flee to another town in obedience to Jesus (Matthew 10:23). Thus, a handful of stubborn, closed-minded, aggressive men could damn an entire town of people.

Thank God that no man ever gets angry when his long-held beliefs are challenged, so I am sure that no households or towns were actually condemned. ;-)

That brings us to the final point in this study; specific households and towns were to be condemned. That means that timing is a factor; that Jesus did indeed think that Judgement Day was near. After all, if more than a generation or two passed on before Judgement Day, than those who were specifically cursed (namely those in a specific house or town at the time of Apostle's rejection) would be long dead.

By this example, Jesus is setting a precedence. You get one chance to believe to believe in Him. If you choose disbelief, to Hell with you. (Oh, and by the way, that decision may be made for you by others.) From that example, you can see the love, grace, and forgiveness of Jesus shine right through.

Who Needs Help?

'
Background
Beginning with Jesus healing a paralyzed man by forgiving his sins, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree on the chronological order of a short series of anecdotes. Meanwhile, John skips these events entirely.

Who Needs Help?

Not every issue with the Biblical text is earth shattering or belief altering. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence which suggests issues with veracity, but would never convince a believer to kindle the flame of a healthy skepticism. We will examine a couple of these lesser points in this study.

Matthew 9:9, Mark 2:14, and Luke 5:27-28 all briefly tell how a tax collector by the name of Matthew/Levi was called by Jesus. Jesus said “Follow Me,” and Matthew/Levi immediately gets up and follows Him. There are a couple issues here.

One issue is the obvious discrepancy between the account in Matthew, which calls the tax collector “Matthew,” and the accounts of Mark and Luke, which call the tax collector “Levi.” It is suggested that Matthew had two names, and perhaps one was a baptismal name, or perhaps an additional chosen name or nickname. So let us assume they are indeed the same person and move on to the bigger issue.

The second issue is that this tax collector, Matthew, is said to be the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Pause just a moment and consider that. We are roughly one-third of the way through the Gospel of Matthew, and yet just now in the story is when Matthew appears. How did Matthew get the information for this Gospel prior to this point of entry into the story?

The preceding chapters of Matthew record material which could only be accurately recorded by an eyewitness, such as exact quotes of what Jesus said and the conversations He had. Furthermore, it contains anecdotes which are unique to Matthew's Gospel, such as the three wise men visiting the baby Jesus, Herod ordering infanticide, and the full version of the epic Sermon on the Mount!

Sure, Matthew could have done some research to find out what happened beforehand, but you do not see any explicit demarcation to indicate what happened before Matthew joined the crew versus what happened after. You do not find “this is what I am told” versus “this is what I saw.” There is no change in perspective from third-person to first- person. That makes Matthew's authorship and eyewitness account at least a little suspect.

Moving on from there, Matthew 9:10-13, Mark 2:15-17, and Luke 5:29-32 record how Matthew/Levi hosted a dinner banquet for Jesus at his house. Jesus partakes. Pharisees asked Jesus' disciples why Jesus was eating with tax collectors and sinners. The three Gospels record similar responses from Jesus, with Matthew 9:12-13 being the longest:

On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." NIV

Here is the odd part about Jesus' response: Jesus thought that the Pharisees were sinners (for following man's ways instead of God's ways) and had false righteousness (Matthew 15:1-16, for example, illustrates both). So the literal interpretation is obviously inaccurate.

So, was Jesus being satirical? It appears that way. In effect, cutting through the deep sarcasm, Jesus was telling the Pharisees that Jesus had no time for them because they did not even realize that they were sinners. Fair enough, but is that consistent with Jesus' message? Yes and no.

Yes. This is fairly consistent with how Jesus treats the Pharisees throughout the Gospels. It is consistent with the message of not tossing pearls to swine.

But, no. No, it is not consistent with the message of Christianity. In Matthew 18:21-22, Jesus says that we should forgive people essentially an unlimited amount of times, but Jesus does not forgive these Pharisees. Jesus supposedly appeared to the Pharisees' murderous thug and firm supporter, Saul, and changed him into a gentle Christian for the Gentiles in Acts 9:1-31, but Jesus does not earnestly seek to to change these Pharisees. Finally, there is the anthem of 2 Peter 3:9, where God does not want anyone to perish, yet we find that Jesus completely shuns helping the Pharisees.

Who really needs Jesus' help? Apparently, that is up to Jesus' discretion. As someone Christians attempt to emulate Jesus, perhaps they should do well to remember that they should use discretion as well, and they should ignore Scripture which suggests otherwise.