Now You Are Guilty

'
Background
Following the Gospel of John, after Jesus identified Judas as a traitor, Judas immediately left the group. This prompted Jesus to begin what is known as the "Farewell Discourse" with the other eleven Disciples. We discussed roughly the first third of the discourse last time, where we saw some oddities, signs of crafted dialog, and contradictions, and discussed that seeing Jesus was equivalent to seeing God.

Now You Are Guilty

At the end of the previous study, we noted how Jesus ended with a call to action ("Come now, let us leave."), but His "Farewell Discourse" continued for three more chapters. That call to action has prompted some liberal Bible scholars to suggest that the real end of the discourse came at the end of John 14, and the next three chapters were insertions from a later author/editor. Let us take a look at the next couple of chapters in the discourse to discover why those scholars may be so anxious to trim them out of the Bible.

In John 15:1-8, Jesus metaphorically called Himself a vine. Immediately, we run into a tangled mess of contradictions. In John 15:1-2 we read:

"I am the true vine, and My Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit He prunes so that it will be even more fruitful." NIV

The language here is fairy clear. God will somehow remove non-productive followers of Jesus; removing indicated by the cutting off of the branches, followers of Jesus indicated by the "in Me." Of course, we reviewed in the previous study that people are only "in" Jesus if they obey His commands (John 14:15-20), which would seem to make it impossible for them to be unproductive. Not only that, but the people who are led to Jesus are supposed to be the "good" ones already, because as John 6:37, John 6:44-45, and John 6:65 indicate, it requires God's selection to follow Jesus. It seems rather odd that God would lead someone to Jesus, only to get rid of them soon after they had become a follower.

Just two verses later, John 15:4 contradicts what Jesus had just said:

"Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in Me." NIV

Here, Jesus commands His followers to remain in Him, but as John 15:1-2 explained, it was God who was controlling whether or not the branches remained "in" the vine!

The rest of the verses using the extended, twisted, vine metaphor divulged how lopped off branches would be gathered and burned, meanwhile those who remain in Jesus would have anything they wished.

In the next section of verses, John 15:9-17 mostly speaks of love and obedience; how if they obey Jesus, they will be loved by Him, and how they should love each other to the point of giving up their lives for one another. It also explains how Jesus considered the Disciples to be friends, not servants, because He has told them what He is planning. This is a pretty nice section overall, but most friends do not say to other friends that they are only friends "if you do what I command"! ;-) There is another apparent contradiction found in John 15:16, where Jesus said that He chose the Disciples, but John 10:29 suggests that it was God, the Father, who instead chose them for Jesus. Although, it is hard to call that a true contradiction if Jesus and God are one and the same! ;-)

Next, in John 15:18-21 Jesus warned that they would be persecuted by the world for following Jesus.

Speaking of the people in the world, in John 15:22-25 Jesus explained why they are now guilty. Check out John 15:22 and John 15:24, respectively below:

"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin." NIV

"If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both Me and My Father." NIV

Pffeeww! We are all off the hook! Obviously, if Jesus' words are true here, we cannot be guilty because Jesus has not spoken to us, and we have not seen any miracles! Now, Christians may object that "Jesus has spoken to you through the Bible!" Wrong! Such Christians are missing the point here. Jesus did not say that they were guilty for ignoring the Scriptures, of which they had plenty that allegedly speak of Jesus. No, they were guilty because they had personally heard Jesus and were eyewitnesses to His miracles. Us? Not so much.

John 15:26-27 closes the chapter with a reminder that Jesus would give followers the Holy Spirit.

In John 16:1-4, Jesus warned them that they would be persecuted, even to death. John 16:2 is particularly interesting:

"They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God." NIV

Why would anyone think that? As we discussed in a study long ago, in Deuteronomy 13:1-18 God demanded zero tolerance for deviations from His brand of religion, even to the point of slaughtering entire towns. That includes killing miracle-working prophets (Deuteronomy 13:1-5) and even your dearest friend or family member (Deuteronomy 13:6-11). As Deuteronomy 13:5 makes it clear:

"That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you." NIV

In John 16:5-11, Jesus explained again that He was going way for their good, that He would send them the Holy Spirit, and that the Spirit would convict people and Satan. Nothing too exciting there, except that Jesus began with yet another contradiction, saying that none of the Disciples asked Jesus where He was going, despite Simon Peter asking Jesus that exact question earlier in this self-same Farewell Discourse in John 13:36!

Anyway, Jesus then explained more about what the Holy Spirit would do (John 16:12-15). Then He went into how they would soon be grieving, but their grief would turn to joy, alluding to His resurrection (John 16:16-22). After He was resurrected, they could have anything for which they asked (John 16:23-24).

In John 16:25-31, Jesus and the Disciples discussed communication and belief. In John 16:25, Jesus started with:

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about My Father." NIV

Why would Jesus have purposely obfuscated His message? The logical reason is that He did not want people to understand. It blows a hole through the Christian apologist's mantra that God is too difficult to understand, because Jesus identified that He had the option to explain about God plain language, but He chose not to do so.

So when was that time coming, when we would get this plain message from Jesus? Apparently, not too long afterward, because just a few verses later we find in John 16:29-30:

Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God." NIV

There was not anything in what Jesus had just said which had made Him more or less believable, or that made Him appear more or less clear, at least by comparison with the rest of the Gospel of John, and yet we are supposed to believe that that was the tipping point of when the Disciples finally believed? That is ridiculous, largely because they had already believed (John 1:41, John 1:45, John 1:49, John 6:68-69)!

The chapter closes out in John 16:32-35, with Jesus telling them that they would become scattered, but that they should have peace because He has overcome the world. I do not know about Him overcoming the world, but He sure has overcome some bad storytelling to continue to be believed, even in our times.

Judging the Blinded

'
Background
After Jesus' Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem, some Greeks sought out an audience with Him. Jesus replied to that request indirectly by predicting His death, telling people to hate their lives and follow Him, getting God to speak, giving reminder of the impending Judgement Day, and then hiding from everyone.

Judging the Blinded

If you are denied access to knowing the right thing to do, should you be punished for not doing the right thing? Have you got an answer in your mind? How would that change if I told you that the person in charge of distributing that knowledge, the one who denied you access to that information, was the same person judging you and assigning the punishments for not knowing what to do? What then? But what are our thoughts worth here, really? Why not check in to see what God thinks about the matter?

We start our study with John 12:37-38. This is immediately after Jesus had talked to crowd and then hid Himself away. In these verses John stated that despite the signs that Jesus performed in their presence, "they" (contextually meaning most of the Jews) did not believe in Jesus, and this fulfilled the prophetic verse from Isaiah 53:1. Isaiah 53 is the longest single Old Testament prophesy which has been applied to Jesus, and, unlike many other alleged prophesies, it actually appears to be somewhat accurate at first glance. However, in a recent post I explained the contextual reasons why that prophesy is unlikely to be meant for Jesus.

Next we come to two of the most revealing verses about the nature of God. In John 12:39-40 we see:

For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
"He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them." NIV

First note that "they could not believe," as in they had no choice in the matter. Belief was not possible. That feeds into the quote from Isaiah which followed.

If you are unfamiliar with the source of this quote, you might think that that "He" is supposed to represent Satan. After all, who else would be blinding people from the truth and deadening their hearts to prevent them from repenting and being healed by God? Well, guess again.

John has misquoted Isaiah 6:10, which reads:

"Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." NIV

If you read the entire short prophesy of Isaiah 6, you will see that the context of this verse is that God was cursing the Israelites/Jews because He really wanted to punish them. It was God who was blinding their eyes and making their hearts hard. They had been in a cycle of backslide-repent-backslide, and so God wanted to send them a message that they would not forget so quickly; exile from the Promised Land. But He was afraid that if they repented, He would then be obligated to forgive them and subsequently would be prevented from getting His memorable message across.

By John using those verses here, he provided a crystal clear meaning: God prevented them from believing. However, as opposed to a seventy-year exile which happened the first time, this time there were more eternal consequences involved. God damned them to Hell; not even giving them the option to choose to believe in the Salvation offered through Jesus.

Those of you who are long-time readers of this blog may remember that I highlighted how Jesus had quoted this same verse from Isaiah as a response to the question of why He spoke in parables. The purpose of the parables was to exclude certain people from the Salvation option.

Ironically the next verse, John 12:41, states how Isaiah had said this because he had seen Jesus' glory. In my opinion, there is nothing glorious about judging against the blind for not being able to see, especially if you are the one who blinded them. In fact, it is morally reprehensible.

Moving on to (perhaps) less repugnant matters, John 12:42-43 is a good example of pious fiction in the Gospels:

Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in [Jesus]. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved praise from men more than praise from God. NIV

This is the kind of passage you read without giving it a second thought, because it seems reasonable. This is better than the Isaiah reference above, because clearly these people did have a choice in the matter of their Salvation. But when you think about these verses, you may realize that they have to be made up, because if these believers would not confess their faith, how is it then possible that John knew that they had believed?

In yet another seemingly odd splice(?), John 12:44 begins "Then Jesus cried out..." As you may remember from the previous study, the last thing that we have record of Jesus doing was leaving the crowd and hiding from them (John 12:36). So apparently Jesus yelled out the subsequent monologue after He had hidden Himself away from everyone. Jesus howling this speech to an absent crowd is not the only strange thing about it...

John 12:44-45 begins by discussing the vicarious nature of Jesus. If you believe in Jesus, you believe in God. Etc. Nothing too strange there, but let us move on to the next verse.

In John 12:46, Jesus claimed that His purpose was to be a light to the dark world. That in itself is not strange, until you consider another factor. In Matthew 5:15, Mark 4:21, Luke 8:16, Luke 11:33, Jesus Himself explained (metaphorically) that you should not hide that kind of light, but instead let it shine in a way that people can see by it. Yet, as noted above, Jesus said this after hiding Himself from the crowd (John 12:36)!

As Jesus continued on in John 12:47-48, we get the picture of Jesus playing a little bit of the "good cop/bad cop" routine. He said that He came to save the world, not to judge it, and explicitly claimed that He would not be the one to judge it. That is the "good cop" version of Jesus. Jesus had already played the "bad cop" in John 5:22-30 and John 9:39, where He explicitly claimed that He would indeed be the judge of all.

Jesus closed out His screaming schizophrenic soliloquy in John 12:49-50 by explaining that He had only said what God had told Him to say. If that is the case, either God morally disgusting and mentally disturbed, or God was playing one tremendous practical joke on Jesus. Or maybe, just maybe, this is all a myth.

The End on Hold

'
Background
Prompted by being asked, Jesus informed His followers of would be the signs indicating His return, Judgement Day, and the end of the world. There would be false Messiahs, wars, and disasters. His disciples would become witnesses to the world. The most horrendous in all of history, before or after, would occur; the Siege of Jerusalem. Then He would return with great power, and great judgement on all mankind, so they had better be on guard.

The End on Hold

We know that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus had been around. Precisely when each of the four Gospels was committed to ink in its present form is a matter of debate. Most scholars suggest Mark was written first, and that his Gospel provided much of the backbone for Matthew and Luke.

As we saw in the previous series, the implication of Jesus' prophesies about the end of the world was that it would be soon after the Siege of Jerusalem. Quite interestingly, that is about all Mark has to say about timing, but Matthew and Luke appear to emphasize there being some delay before Jesus would reappear. Luke scattered these delay-references throughout his Gospel, but Matthew consolidated his chosen delay-references for us within the section we are studying now.

It started back in the last chapter. You may remember from the previous study, in Matthew 24:45-51, and much earlier in the Luke 12:42-46 parallel, Jesus gave a parable comparing wise and foolish servants. Let us take a closer look at the timing mentioned in these parables.

In Matthew 24:48 we find:

"But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,'" NIV

The phrase "is staying away a long time" weakly implies that the servant knows roughly how long the master will be away. From this perspective, we can infer a way to make sense of this: Jesus had allegedly just given them a list of signs which would forecast His return, so His followers would know that nothing would happen until these signs came to pass. This would give deviant followers living in the span between the death of Jesus and the Siege of Jerusalem decades of time to slack off in their morality before straightening up for Jesus' return, as the parable itself suggests. While the cat is away, the mice will play.

However, in the Luke 12:45 version we see:

"But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk." NIV

The phrase "is taking a long time in coming" instead weakly implies that the servant had expected the master back already, but it appears that the master is delayed for some reason. From this perspective, we can infer a different situation; that perhaps the signs have all happened (up to the Siege of Jerusalem and so Jesus' return was expected) but there is an unexplained delay in Jesus' return.

Because these are only weak implications, they could easily be wrong, or both them could be taken to mean either interpretation noted above. However, if the latter version is true, it could be somewhat revealing. It could subsequently imply something about the timing of when Matthew and Luke were written, in that it could mean that these two Gospels were written after the Siege, possibly by several years, at a time when life seemed to be returning to normal. The closer you get to normal after some catastrophic event, the less it seems like Jesus' return is just around the corner, and, in turn, that means the more doubt springing up from within the community of the faithful. A message like this could be used to motivate the community to stay in the faith despite the apparent lag in manifest divine glory.

Given that Mark, the earliest of these three Gospels, did not share this sentiment anywhere, it appears that this delay may be an addition to the original story. Somewhat contrary to this theory is the fact that Matthew and Luke share this particular content nearly identically, suggesting a relatively early tradition committed to writing at some point in time earlier than the Matthew and Luke themselves. But given that we still do not know exactly when these two Gospels came into being, that "relatively early" could easily be after the Siege.

Continuing to the next chapter, in Matthew 25:1-13 there is a parable about ten virgins who "went out to meet the bridegroom." Half of them were smart enough to bring oil for their lamps just in case they needed it, but the other half did not. When the bridegroom arrived, he ultimately rejected the five virgins who were not adequately oiled. It seems a little odd that the bridegroom would kick out five extra virgins over such a trivial mistake, but let us leave that alone. ;-) The key verse for us in regards to this study is Matthew 25:5:

"The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep." NIV

In case it was not obvious, the bridegroom represents Jesus. Given that we started with these virgins going out to meet the bridegroom, you have a sense that they expected him to be there, ready for them. Instead we see that it took a long time, longer than expected, for the bridegroom to arrive. This plays into the notion noted above; that perhaps Matthew was written in a time when people were already expecting for Jesus to have returned, and so these verses were written to keep the faithful flock in line. The End was put on hold, and yet held perpetually at the threshold of occurring.

In the next parable the point was briefly emphasized again. Matthew 25:14-28 contains the Parable of the Talents, which somewhat similar to the Parable of the Ten Minas which we studied before from Luke 19:11-27. As noted in the previous study, the many differences between these two parables combined with a similar backbone suggests that this was an oral tradition carried on verbally for a considerable amount of time before being written, much longer than the parable we started this study with, as well as perhaps some intentional "enhancement" of the parable by Luke. Anyway, there is one particular difference we should focus on relevant to the timing aspect. In Matthew 25:19 we find:

"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them." NIV

"After a long time" also appears to be preparing believers for a longer than expected time frame for Jesus' return. If the comparison with Luke's version of the parable is valid, it appears that Matthew may have deliberately inserted the "long time" into the story, as Luke 19:15 does not mention anything about how long it took for the master to return. Luke also used this parable to speak about timing, but explicitly did so to explain that Jesus did not intend to establish the Kingdom of God the first time He was on earth in the flesh (Luke 19:11).

Matthew was generally pretty good at aggregating and consolidating information, and here we can see an example of his work. Back to back to back, we have seen three references where Matthew was trying to communicated that, contrary to what we may have guessed from the previous chapter, Jesus' return would not be immediately after the Siege of Jerusalem. In short, we have seen here how Matthew prepared his followers for a long wait; a wait which may have already been in progress at the time of writing the Gospel.

How about we end on a somewhat positive note? Closing out this chapter, in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus relayed how, on Judgement Day, He would reward people according to what they had done. He explained that such good deeds as feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, and visiting people in prison were actually done to Him vicariously. On the other hand, if you did not help out these people in need, you vicariously rejected Jesus.

On the good side, this is a great way to motivate people to help other people. Followers should literally be thinking that what they are doing to help they are doing to Jesus Himself. Even if Christianity was a deliberate hoax (which I think is an inaccurate, or at least incomplete, assessment), with messages like these it is hard to say that it was a completely malignant hoax. You could argue that church leaders may have been becoming wealthy and powerful as the movement grew, but you would also have to acknowledge that the movement did, and still does, aid the marginalized people in society to some extent.

On the other hand, this message is the proverbial gun-to-the-head situation. Help the needy, or get punished. And it is not a proportional punishment, either. Matthew 25:41 sends those who provide no aid "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels," and Matthew 25:46 confirms that this will be an "eternal punishment." This is one of the most explicit references to the eternally torturing fires of Hell that you find in Matthew. Some Christians who do not like the concept of eternal torture will instead argue that this just means either an eternal "separation from God" or an annihilation (as in, if you cease to exist, that is an eternal punishment). Eternal punishment, of any flavor, for not visiting people in prison seems a little bit extreme to me.

Finally, from another perspective, note that this is explicitly a works-based Salvation plan. Merely having faith in Jesus will not save you if you do not take action to feed the hungry, visit prisoners, clothe the poor, etc.

The End Back Then, Part 5: Be Ready

'
Background
A long time ago, Jesus was asked the questions which are on the minds of many believers even today: what would be the signs indicating His return, Judgement Day, and the end of the world. He warned of upcoming false Messiahs, wars, and disasters. He explained that His disciples would become witnesses to the world. He described the event which would be the most horrendous in all of history, before or after; the Siege of Jerusalem. That terrifying tribulation was promised to soon yield the His return and a powerful judgement on all mankind.

This is Part 5 of a five part series entitled "The End Back Then." The series entries are:

• Part 1: Rumors of Wars
• Part 2: Worldwide Witness
• Part 3: Temple Tragedy
• Part 4: Jesus' Return
• Part 5: Be Ready

The End Back Then, Part 5: Be Ready

Can you imagine the utter ecstasy faithful Christians will have the day that their Savior, Jesus Christ, returns? The God that they love more than any person in the world will come for them, and Jesus, who loved them enough to sacrifice His own life for them, will be overjoyed to finally destroy the metaphysical barriers keeping them from living together happily ever after. Should you be on guard for such a joyous occasion? We will find the answer to that question in our study.

Matthew 24:32-51, Mark 13:28-37, and Luke 21:29-36 (plus Luke 17:26-35) further suggest an imminent Judgement Day way back then, but emphasize being prepared for the Second Coming. So we find in Matthew 24:32-33, and similarly in Mark 13:28-29 and Luke 21:29-31, Jesus saying:

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that [the Kingdom of God] is near, right at the door." NIV

You see the tender twigs, summer is near. You see "all these things" (contextually false messiahs, the wars, war rumors, natural disasters, the Gospel preached in the [known] world, and the siege of Jerusalem), then the Kingdom of God is "right at the door." We all know about how long it takes to enter the threshold of a door. It does not take about 2000 years.

The final nail in the prophesy-timing-failure coffin is recorded identically in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 from Jesus' own mouth:

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." NIV

As we saw in the previous study, Jesus' Second Coming was part of "all these things" which were described. The generation living at that time has long since turned to dust, but we are still waiting for Jesus to deliver us. Well, some of us are, anyway. ;-)

You should be aware that there is some disagreement among scholars as to what is meant by "this generation." As we saw in the previous study, John Gill did not think that Matthew had been referring literally to the Second Coming of Jesus, so here he would essentially, and ironically, agree with me, saying posthumously:

"...it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; ... and must, since all these things had their accomplishment, in and about forty years after this..."

However, the word interpreted as "generation" here can also refer to "a people," so the scholars who instead agree with me that Matthew had previously described Jesus' return, such as John Darby, suggest alternately that the generation not passing away means something like things like:

"Unbelieving Jews should exist, as such, until all was accomplished."

So there you can see cognitive biases in two different polarities, and yet both are used to preserve their versions of the same truths. It is not the Bible that has contradictions; rather it is the Bible interpretations which are in contradiction. ;-) Each one drifts from the more obvious, more literal meaning, because to believe the words as they are written would mean either that God had failed to keep His word or that Jesus was not as advertised. Either option is unconscionable for the devoutly committed believer.

Moving on, Jesus said that His words would never pass away (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33), which is essentially just a promise from Jesus/God that this prophesy would indeed come to pass exactly as described. But it has not gone according to plan...

Jesus then went on to explain how only God, the Father, knows when the exact day and hour will initiate Judgement Day and establish the Kingdom of God (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32). This is quite interesting, because it is an explicit differentiation between God the Father and Jesus. Jesus does not know something that God does know. That would seem impossible if Jesus was also God, so this verse (among others) has been used by those sects which claim that Jesus was not divine, or that Jesus was a creation of God instead of being part of God.

From there, the three accounts diverge a little in content, but focus on the same overall message: be vigilantly watchful for Jesus' return. Mark 13:33 puts it as:

"Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come." NIV

Now if you subscribe to any of the modern mainstream Christian teachings, this is a really dissonant verse. Modern Christianity harps on having a close, personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who is abounding with forgiveness and love. But if that is the case, why would you need to be "on guard" for when He shows up? What real close, personal friendship do you have with anyone in which you have to be on guard for when they show up, other than perhaps a sparring partner? The call for being on guard is because this is not a message of reconciliation and love, but rather a message of potential punishment and fear.

Mark 13:34-37 continues on with a parable about a master who left a servant in charge of his house, and how that master had better not find the servant sleeping, implicitly due to the punishment to be rendered. And with the parable portraying a master who goes away, how can you have a personal relationship with someone who is gone? (Mind you, this is before Facebook and cell phones, or even the post office.) Jesus never intended to have a close, personal relationship with anyone in this life, which is the reason for this warning about drifting from the faith. Matthew 24:42-51 has an "enhanced" version of this same parable, where the master will take such a deviant servant and "cut him to pieces."

Matthew 24:37-41 plays expands this theme of judgement, likening Jesus' return with the Flood of Noah. Just like the Flood, Judgement Day would come unexpectedly (despite all of the signs previously noted).

Luke 17:26-27 draws that same Flood comparison, but Luke 17:28-31 goes further in judgement references by citing the destruction of Sodom as a similar, unexpected, disastrous event. Luke 17:32-35 goes further still, reminding Jesus' followers that if they do not forsake this life, they will lose the eternal one. Punishment will come with Jesus, so be ready, or else...

And for anyone who still thinks that I err, and that this whole series has nothing to do with the Second Coming, the parallel of Luke 21:34-36 should dispel that notion:

"Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man." NIV

So what have we discovered in this series?

The timing is explicit: The fruition of these signs would occur in close proximity to the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, though the precise day was unknown.

The scope is defined: These signs would ultimately herald in Jesus' Second Coming, Judgement Day, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God.

The failure is obvious: The Siege of Jerusalem did happen, but it did not usher in Judgement Day, Jesus' return, or the Kingdom of God. And that siege certainly was not the worst event in human history.

The way that Jesus ends this prophesy is significant. It is not with flowery words about how He will be looking forward to rejoining the love of His faithful followers, and bemoaning the losses of those who just would not yield to the light. It is a message of fear. It is a warning that they (Jesus' own followers) had better keep their act together, or else they would be severely punished. There is no hint of God's grace here at all.

It is funny that you do not commonly hear that message from the pulpit.

Blind Hearsay

'
Background
We are following the Gospel of John, where recently Jesus had a discussion with some Jews on the Temple grounds of Jerusalem. Many of these Jews had put their faith in Jesus, but Jesus told them that they that they were trying to kill Him, and that they could not understand Him because they were the children of the Devil. At this, those Jews changed their minds, and thought that Jesus was a crazy heretic. As Jesus continued, He claimed that He had seen Abraham, and that He was part of God. The Jews had heard enough, and picked up stones to kill Him, but He slipped away unscathed.

Blind Hearsay

Hearsay is testimony given by someone who has no first-hand knowledge of the event. It is normally inadmissible as evidence in court, because often it cannot be easily verified. Hearsay is not necessarily wrong. Historians make a career out of hearsay, but a credible historian has an obligation to reveal the source of that hearsay. This practice facilitates discerning the truth, or at least a version of truth based on best available information. Accordingly, there should be some caution regarding historical unsupported hearsay, even in sacred texts. All of the Gospels include some unsupported hearsay, such as the details around Jesus' birth and John the Baptist's beheading, and the Gospel of John is no exception.

The entire chapter of John 9 is centered on a man who was blind from birth, up until Jesus intervened. Before we get to the hearsay, the story begins with a fascinating revelation in John 9:1-3:

As [Jesus] went along, He saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life." NIV

You may be wondering how Jesus' disciples could have come up with such a crazy idea: that this man was blind because of sin; either his own sin (which would have necessarily happened after his birth) or that of his parents. Well, to them it was not a crazy idea, but rather a fact of life.

As we covered in a study of Leviticus, according to God's Law, if you became sick (or if your house got mildew), it was due to your sins. It is a short logical distance to lump blindness together with other sin-caused sicknesses, provided that it had not been cause by demon-possession. (But, hey, this is the Gospel of John we are talking about, which never mentions Jesus casting out any demons, so we know that demon-possession would not be the case here!)

Also, with regard to the punishment of the parent's sins being applied to the child, God promised to punish subsequent generations if the parents worshiped idols (Exodus 20:4-6). This line of thought extended far beyond that one divine commandment, such that Ezekiel 18:2 tells us that the Jews had a generalized proverb that "parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge."

Notice that in Jesus' reply, He did not correct their line of thinking in general, but rather addressed this specific case, telling them that this man was born blind to make manifest the work of God. This implicitly means that God made this man blind from birth. As Exodus 4:11 tells us, it is God who makes people deaf, dumb, or blind, but that is not the "work of God" Jesus is referring to.

As the story continues, Jesus claimed that we must do God's work while we have daylight, and He was that daylight, but night is coming. So Jesus made some mud with His spit, rubbed it on the blind man's eyes, and then told him to wash off the magic spit-mud at a certain pool in the city. The man did what he was told, and he gained his vision (John 9:4-7).

So the "work of God" was to give this blind man sight, thereby displaying God's good powers. From the eyes of the pious, this makes some sense, but an outsider cannot help but be appalled by it. Why? Well, imagine a king who had locked up a baby in his dungeon on the day that it was born, with the king planning to release the baby after twenty or so years in order to prove that he was a good and powerful king. Such is the case with this man's blindness.

Now, about that hearsay problem. Jesus did not send a disciple with the blind man to verify that he went to that pool and got his sight back, but that is no problem to explain, because Jesus would later meet up with this man, and the man would actually see Jesus for the first time, and worship Him (John 9:35-38). That implies that the man did what he was told.

The real hearsay issue is what happened after the blind man washed off the spit-mud and got his sight, up until when Jesus finds him again. In that time gap, John records that the man is doubted by his neighbors, who then take him in front of the Pharisees, who then get angry because Jesus had healed this man on a Sabbath and, in turn, they launch an investigation which included questioning of the man's parents. The tall tale ends with the ex-blind man mocking the Pharisees for their lack of discernment and him being thrown out of the synagogue for that mocking (John 9:8-34). All of these details are fully fleshed out beyond measure of a second-hand telling, replete with recorded dialog. Yet there are no disciple witnesses, and when Jesus does meet with the ex-blind man again later, there is no mention of the man recounting this "history."

If that level of voluminous hearsay is not enough to cast some doubt on its veracity, perhaps you need only look within it to find an intrinsic inconsistency (which is very characteristic of the Gospel of John) to arouse some suspicion. When the Pharisees tell the ex-blind man that they know that Jesus is a sinner, the man replies that he does not know whether or not Jesus is a sinner (John 9:24-25). Contrast this to later in the story in John 9:30-33, when that same man mocks those same Pharisees for not realizing that Jesus must be sinless to work that kind of a miracle.

Or, if that internal contradiction is not enough to cast doubt, consider John 9:29, where the Pharisees claim that they do not know where Jesus comes from. Yet in John 3:2, Pharisees considered Jesus to be a man from God, and in John 6:42 and John 7:27, the Jews knew Jesus' family and hometown.

I dare say, these issues make it worthy of reconsidering the truth that you think you know.

Why Is My Language Not Clear to You?

'
Background
We are continuing through a section of the Gospel of John. Recently some Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery to Jesus as a trap, but He ended up turning her condemners by telling the person without sin to cast the first stone. Later, some Pharisees challenged Jesus in a nonsensical manner; by claiming that He was acting as His own witness. Jesus essentially agreed with them, but said that His testimony was still valid.

Why Is My Language Not Clear to You?

The language used by the author of the Gospel of John, particularly the language used by Jesus in that Gospel, is quite different than what you will find in the other three Gospels. This is more than just a matter of word choice by different authors. This is a different kind of Jesus. John's Jesus never speaks in parables and is prone to having lengthy, lecturing dialogs which do not have an equivalent in the other three Gospels. The trouble is that John's author was rarely clever enough to pull off an intrinsically logical dialog.

In John 8:21-29, Jesus spoke to some Jews, where, among other things, He confirmed in a somewhat less-than-direct way that He was God's son and the Messiah. Some of them did not buy it, but, according to John 8:30:

Even as [Jesus] spoke, many put their faith in Him. NIV

Great news! In John 8:31-32, Jesus, presumably sensing these many believers, speaks directly to them:

To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said, "If you hold to My teaching, you are really My disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." NIV

Jesus essentially said to them that believing is not enough; you also have to follow His teaching. And we get to that oh-so-famous line that "the truth will set you free." I am sure it was attractive lines like that which made John's Gospel so hard to resist including it in the canon.

Here is where the Gospel of John takes one of its characteristically odd turns in dialog. Those Jews replied to Jesus by saying that they are sons of Abraham and that they have never been slaves. So they ask how can they be set free (John 8:33).

The odd part of that reply is the reference to being sons of Abraham. It is not necessary. You are either free or a slave, or some hybrid thereof, but being a descendant of Abraham has nothing to do with it. If they hail all the way back to Abraham, then their descendants were slaves in Egypt.

More importantly, God's Law (Deuteronomy 15:12-15) had provisions for them to sell themselves as bonded servants, essentially temporary slaves, so being of Abraham's lineage actually makes it possible for some of those Jews in the audience to be slaves (or at least not truly "free" men)! Yet this odd suggestion is presented as the consensus rebuttal of that entire group of Jews.

Jesus then explained that everyone who sins is a slave to sin, but if the son (implicitly Jesus) of the slave owner (implicitly God) sets them free, then they will be free indeed (John 8:34-36). Yes, you read that right. Check it out for yourself. You can tell that the author of John did not mean to say that, but the convoluted metaphor he used equates slavery to sin as slavery to God, and both conditions are therefore equally undesirable, but that is just one shocking thing in Jesus' alleged reply. Read the next verse, John 8:37:

"I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill Me, because you have no room for My word." NIV

OK, do you remember to whom Jesus was speaking? As we saw above, according to John 8:31, Jesus was speaking to "the Jews who had believed Him." So the Jews who believed Jesus had no place for His word, and they were trying to kill Him. That seems logical, right?

As the conversation continued, Jesus told them that He does what He has seen God do, but they do what they learned from their father. They replied that Abraham is their father. Jesus replied that they want to kill Him, which is not what Abraham would have done, but what their father would do. They replied that God is their only father (John 8:38-41). There is no reason for them to have changed their appeal, to change from Abraham to God being their father. It is just a convenient segue for John to elaborate on his point.

John's version of Jesus' reply in John 8:42-47 is priceless:

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on My own; but He sent Me. Why is My language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me! Can any of you prove Me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe Me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." NIV

So the Jews were unable to truly hear what Jesus said, making them unable to believe Him, because they belong to the devil, not to God. This, Jesus said to the Jews who had believed Him. Is it really any wonder why Judaism still exists today, as opposed to converting to Christianity?

If the situation really was that intractable, one must also wonder why Jesus wasted His limited time and breath on these Jews. It makes no sense, unless, perhaps, this text is partly propaganda to put the Jews at arms' length from the still-burgeoning, increasingly Gentile, cult of Christianity.

By Invitation Only

'
Background
After walking on water to meet up with His disciples on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus arrives in Capernaum. Shortly thereafter, some Jews (who had eaten at the feeding of the five thousand) caught up with Jesus there; sparking a conversation where Jesus gets a little tangled up in His own metaphorical language. This study continues on with that same conversation, but with a special focus on exclusivity.

By Invitation Only

Often times, Christians will point to the freewill as an excuse for the way things are; such as why there is evil in the world (a consequence of humans choosing to works acts of evil on their own free will) or why God is justified in the eternal damnation of certain humans (because they have chosen to reject God's Salvation by their own free will). It is such a convenient argument that Christians completely ignore the Scripture which states the contrary. For there is one will which will always trump human will, and that is God's will.

Previously, we saw Jesus having a conversation with some Jews, where He explained that He was the "bread of life" sent by God to give eternal life, and people would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to live (John 6:25-59). During that conversation, another theme emerged: exclusivity.

John 6:37-38 states that Jesus will accept anyone who is sent by God, the Father, which naturally implies that there are those not send by the Father, and therefore not destined for Salvation. The truth of exclusivity is more clearly claimed in John 6:44-45 where Jesus says:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from Him comes to Me." NIV

So you must be drawn by God to the "bread of life," Jesus, to be Saved. There is a little ambiguity which seems to imply that God may speak to some people who do not listen to Him, but that apparent loophole will be closed soon enough. After all, who can resist the will of God?

With God selecting and drawing specific people to Jesus, it appears that any follower of Jesus is Saved, but that is not the case. After Jesus tells the Jews about how they must consume Him for Salvation, some of His own disciples are offended by His teaching (John 6:60). Jesus replies to the disciples in such a way that "many of His disciples turned back and no longer followed Him" (John 6:66).

(Note: Be careful when reading the Gospels, because "disciples" only means "students," not necessarily the Twelve Disciples/Apostles which are often thought of when the term "disciples" is used.)

What did Jesus say which turned many disciples away? Jesus reply in John 6:61-65 is, in a word, confrontational. In John 6:61-62, He starts by mocking their whining and attacking their lack of faith in His authority. Jesus begins His next thought with the "Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing," and states that the words which He had spoken were Spirit and life (John 6:63). Jesus knows, however, that some of them do not believe Him (John 6:64), which is why we find these parting words in John 6:65:

[Jesus] went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless the Father has enabled him." NIV

Take just a moment to reflect on what this teaching means. You can choose to follow Jesus, out of your own free will. Yet you will not be able to believe in Jesus in a manner which leads to Salvation unless God also chooses to let you believe. The flesh, your choice, counts for nothing.

This teaching is a natural consequence of the teaching that God, the Father, is the one who chooses people for Salvation, because if God is the one leading people to Jesus, how could anyone subsequently leave Christianity, making God's actions result in failure? The solution to that conundrum is to establish the theological concept that some people will choose to become Christian, but are not really Saved, because God did not choose them. This is predetermined fate, not an outcome of freewill. God chooses who will be saved and who will perish, not us. This same sentiment is echoed in Romans 9:16-21:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist His will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? NIV

Funny how you do not hear much about this teaching in modern pulpits. It is psychologically much easier to blame a person for rejecting God, than to blame God for rejecting that person.

The Unforgivable Sin

'
Background
Matthew mangled a prophesy to associate Isaiah's metaphorical Suffering Servant with Jesus. Then we came upon the story where Jesus is accused of casting out demons through the power of Satan. Jesus could not think of a good reason why Satan would do such a thing, despite knowing that Satan is a top-notch deceiver. The topic of this study is directly hooked to this blaspheming of Jesus by Matthew and Mark, but Luke tucks it away in a different location.

The Unforgivable Sin

The gift of divine forgiveness is unfathomable. There is nothing you can do which cannot be forgiven by God through the blood of Jesus. That goes anywhere from garden variety sins all the way up to world changing evil. Hitler, the man most frequently referenced as evil incarnate in our times, could have been forgiven by God though Jesus. After all, who knows if he finally saw the light of God and repented of his sins in those final moments in the bunker? Whether or not God would have accepted such a last-minute repentance would be up to Jesus, but we know that through Jesus anything can be forgiven. Well, almost anything...

You see, there is one thing which really gets under God's skin, if He has skin to get under. Matthew 12:31-32 and Luke 12:10 both capture this pet peeve similarly to the more-blunt-and-concise Mark 3:28-29:

"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." NIV

You can torture and slay a thousand people and still enter heaven. You can scream at God for being a wicked despot and still enter heaven. You can call Jesus an hypocritical zombie and still enter heaven. However, if you merely mention that the Holy Ghost is just a tramp in a white bed sheet, then you lose all hope of Salvation, because that sin cannot be forgiven.

The idea that the words you say, even if just said once, can condemn for eternity is difficult to accept from a loving and patient God who perfectly understands the emotional roller coaster that is human life. In fact, the believers of the more-loving version of God which I have encountered reject such a notion. Instead, they try to recast this as a statement saying that this pertains only to who reject God continually throughout their lives.

However, that liberal interpretation is not supported by Matthew and Mark, because this statement is tied to the Pharisees (Matthew 12:24) or teachers of the Law (Mark 3:22) accusing Jesus of casting out demons through the power of Satan. While it is only an implicit connection in Matthew, it is explicitly claimed in Mark 3:30:

[Jesus] said this because [the teachers of the Law] were saying, "He has an evil spirit." NIV

By Jesus' words, these teachers' words had just condemned them for all eternity. That is why you find Jesus saying just a few verses later in Matthew 12:37:

"For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." NIV

Interestingly enough, this attitude is somewhat consistent with what we find in the Old Testament. As part of the popular version of the Ten Commandments, you find God say the following in Exodus 20:7:

"You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name." NIV

Not holding anyone guiltless is the same as saying that the guilty will never be forgiven. Jesus tweaks the message to be a little more tolerant here, making it forgivable to blaspheme God the Father or the Son, but not the Holy Spirit. Even so, with all of the wicked and perverse things that people are capable of doing, it seems illogical that the one sin which could condemn you for eternity is a mere slip of the tongue or a voice of protest.

In fact, the concept of being able to speak ill of our leaders is so important, and considered such a fundamental right, that it is included as the very first amendment in the United States Bill of Rights. It is interesting and revealing that one of our most celebrated and basic human rights is the one thing which can be exercised to yield eternal damnation, according to the God of the Bible.

Selective Election

'
Background
In this part of the Gospels, Jesus was full of condemnation. He likened the generation of people living in His time as a bunch of fickle, unsatisfiable children (Matthew 11:16-19, Luke 7:31-35). He condemned Korazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum for not repented from His miracle shows, and He reveled the fact that God was preventing the wise and learned people from understanding God's hidden things.

Selective Election

Some would say that God gives everyone a fair chance at Salvation. However, the truth of the matter is that the Scripture does not support such an open invitation. As we will see, God is selective about who will be allowed the opportunity of Salvation.

We need to start by setting the proper context. In the previous study, we observed how, in Matthew 11:25-26 and Luke 10:21, Jesus praised God for preventing the “wise and learned” from understanding the hidden “things” of God. It was God's “good pleasure” to keep them in the dark. The verse we are examining comes right after that notion of praise in both Matthew and Luke, but is not mentioned by either of the other two Gospels. Matthew 11:27 has Jesus say:

"All things have been committed to Me by My Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him." NIV

Luke 10:22 is nearly identical. It just adds “who” and “is” for clarification, as in “...No one knows who the Son is except the Father...”

For this to be true, we have one of two things happening here. Either: 1) There is a double-filtration occurring, where God opts to keep some people from understanding and Jesus opts not to reveal God to other people. Or: 2) The “good pleasure” God found in keeping the wise and learned from understanding God's hidden things is the pleasure of letting Jesus make all of the decisions on who will have the opportunity to know God, and who will not.

One thing is certain though: Salvation is not available to everyone. It is only for whoever God/Jesus chooses. The Elect. If you do not have an invitation from Jesus, you do not have the option. Salvation is not a freewill decision, but rather it is a choice made for you; at least the invitation level, if not deeper. It may even be the case that if you are not chosen, there is no hope for you at all, because God will actively prevent you from attaining Salvation, as the preceding verses suggest.

Hidden from the Wise

'
Background
At this point in the Gospel storyline, Jesus is on a roll of condemnation. With disdain, Jesus described the generation of people living in His time as a bunch of fickle, unsatisfiable children (Matthew 11:16-19, Luke 7:31-35). He then condemned Korazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum for not being convinced to repent by His miracles; miracles which would have made Sodom repent so much so that they would have still existed to that day. There is one more bone to pick.

Hidden from the Wise

The portrait of Jesus many Christians would like to present is full of light, love, and mercy. There are certainly verses to support such an ideal being. However, those who consider all of Jesus' words honestly are forced to face the fact that Jesus had a darker side, dwelling in hate and vengeance, such as what we will see in this study.

In Matthew 11:25-26, like Luke 10:21, we find Jesus saying these interesting words:

"I praise You, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure." NIV

What exactly did Jesus mean here? This is a little difficult to discern, because in the context immediately surrounding these verses neither Matthew nor Luke provides much insight. It appears to be an island; a little anecdote which neither author could fit in to an appropriate location.

And it is no wonder there is difficulty. The verses, if literally true, meant that only young children seemed to understand Jesus' message. However, while there were children involved, it seems that the majority of people who were following Jesus were adults. So “little children” is more likely to be a metaphor for something else than referring to actual children.

What are “little children” like? Innocent and naïve, lacking a broad wisdom of the world, not yet educated. To people with these qualities, God has revealed the hidden things. Or, as I have seen some skeptics paint it by playing off the contrast from “the wise and learned,” that only the stupid, or perhaps rather, the more gullible, believed Jesus. But this skeptical slant goes a little too far, because God has no problems with wisdom, as long as it is the right kind of wisdom, like the Proverbs 1:7 kind:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction. NIV

God's kind of wisdom is the Psalm 19:7 kind of wisdom:

The Law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. NIV

So let us take a quick look at the other side of the equation. Who are “the wise and learned” supposed to be? We do not know what these hidden “things” are, but the implication is that they are related to God and Jesus, which in turn would imply that “the wise and learned” are people like the Pharisees and scribes, and perhaps their disciples, who had studied the Scriptures to the point of having their own understanding and knowledge of God and His prophesies. As we know based on Jewish customs and recorded concepts in the Gospels, that learned class had sometimes extrapolated well beyond the Scriptural text in their version of understanding God.

Now that we have a sense of who Jesus was speaking about, let us take consider the meaning of Matthew 11:25-26 and Luke 10:21. Jesus is praising God for finding pleasure in hiding these “things” from people who have devoted great effort into studying God, while instead revealing them to people who have not studied about God much.

While the use of “little children” appears metaphorical, the act of God hiding the hidden “things” from “the wise and learned” is decidedly not a metaphor. Jesus is not saying “thank God these people cannot figure out the truth on their own.” Jesus is instead saying “thank you, God, for preventing these people from understanding the truth,” because the act of preventing their understanding was a “good pleasure” for God. To revel in the fact that certain people cannot understand God is an act of hate, not love.

Contrary to Matthew 18:14 and 2 Peter 3:9, God and Jesus are not only willing that some would perish, but they actually derive pleasure in the thought of some perishing in their ignorance; an ignorance held upon them by God Himself. It is God's thirst and pleasure for vengeance without a chance of Salvation which seems to be hidden from many, otherwise wise, Christians today.

If you think that last statement is a bit overreaching, consider the history of confusion bestowed by God:

• In response to the Tower of Babel, God confused language (Genesis 11:7)
• God confused Pharaoh's army troops. (Exodus 14:3, Exodus 14:24)
• God prevented the Israelites from fully understanding what God was doing while they wandered the Wilderness (Deuteronomy 29:4)
• God promised to confuse the nations which were occupying the Promised Land before the Israelites. (Exodus 23:27, Deuteronomy 7:23, Joshua 10:10, 1 Samuel 14:20)
• God promised to confuse the Israelites if they turned away from Him (Deuteronomy 28:20, Deuteronomy 28:28, Isaiah 6:9, Jeremiah 51:34, Micah 7:4)
• There are repeated Scriptural prayers for God to send confusion to enemies (Psalm 35:26, Psalm 40:14, Psalm 70:2, Psalm 71:24)
• God closed the minds of the people who were mocking Job (Job 17:4)

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.

The Origin of Paralysis

'
Background
This is another Gospel story with different precursors. Matthew: Jesus calms the storm and casts demons into swine. Mark: Jesus prays alone, and then travels throughout Galilee, preaching and exorcising, and finally cures a leper. Luke: Jesus gathers fishers of men and then cures a leper. John: No comment. Despite different origins, the Gospels all come together for this next anecdote. All but John, that is.

The Origin of Paralysis

Every so often, a piece of ancient text will reveal a detail which ties it to the epoch in which it was written. Some details are blatant, like mentioning the nation of Persia. Others are a little more subtle, requiring special attention to draw out from the text, but the extra effort can be rewarding in more clearly revealing the beliefs and customs of the time. For example, take the story of Jesus healing a paralytic man.

Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, and Luke 5:17-26 all record the story about how four men delivered their paralyzed friend on a mat to Jesus. Jesus tells the paralyzed man that his sins are forgiven. Some teachers of the Law, and possibly some Pharisees too, either began to talk amongst themselves or think to themselves that Jesus was blaspheming. Jesus detects their thoughts, and asks them which is easier to say: “'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk.'” Jesus then heals the paralyzed man to show them all that Jesus can forgive sins, and then tells the man to get up and leave. Everybody is impressed by the miracle.

That is great, but there are several issues and revelations which need closer scrutiny here.

When did this happen? Matthew 9:1 records that this event happened right after Jesus crossed the Sea of Galilee, which was right after He sent demons into swine. The demons-into-swine trick was also recorded in Mark 5:1-20. Yet Mark 2:1 records that the healing of the paralyzed man happened a “few days” after Jesus healed a leper in Mark 1:40-45 (which is also recorded in Matthew 8:2-4). There is no way to reconcile this timeline.

Next, this is one of the passages in the Gospels in which Jesus confirms a few things here:

Jesus retained at least some supernatural powers of God, and God can read minds. That is nothing new, but debate often plays out in Christian circles about exactly how much Godly power, if any, did Jesus give up when becoming a man. (Bonus Question: How did the Gospel authors know what Jesus knew about the Law teachers' thoughts?)

Jesus can forgive sins. Let me repeat: Jesus can forgive sins; as in Jesus can forgive sins without being crucified. That is, Jesus can heal the rift between man and God without a sacrifice. That is, the crucifixion was not essential or mandatory to re-unite sinful man with Holy God.

As mind-blowing as the revelation above is to Christian doctrine, there is another one which catches my attention even more. When Jesus observed the four men bring in their paralyzed friend, He “saw their faith,” but Jesus did not forgive the sins of all of these men. Instead, Jesus only forgave the sins of the paralyzed man, despite being impressed with the faith of all of these men (Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20). Why would that be? The answer is Biblical...

Back in those times, people who were afflicted with disease were thought to be punished by God for their sins. As was covered in a previous study, if you were sick, you were guilty. This fact is also revealed right in this episode in a subtle manner. First, as noted, Jesus only forgave the paralytic man. Second, when Jesus asked if it was easier to say that sins are forgiven or that to tell the paralyzed man to get up and walk (Matthew 9:5, Mark 2:9, Luke 5:23), He was not really asking which sentence is easier to speak. No, instead Jesus was asking which of these acts is easier to actually do, with Jesus' implicit answer being that they are equally difficult because the punishment for sin (paralysis) would require God's forgiveness to be healed.

This was the custom of belief at the time, the custom defining how people knew that God interacted with them. If they were sick, God was punishing them. If they were wealthy and healthy, God was happy with them. This same belief, and one of its associated issues, is echoed elsewhere in the Gospels, in John 9:1-2:

As [Jesus] went along, He saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" NIV

Remember the next time you are sick, or you get paralyzed, or you get cancer, that, from a Biblical perspective, it is either because God is punishing you for your sins or because (in the example from John 9:1-38) the healing of your ailment will bring glory to God. So if you happen to die with your disease, I guess you will die knowing that God was punishing you. Oh, and God is Love. ;-)

Instead, I recommend aligning your beliefs with reality, and recognize that the “Truth” of the Bible is not really all that true. God's word is not eternal. Rather, it is outdated.