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.

Cut Off Your Reason

'
Background
One of the times after arriving in Capernaum, Jesus told Peter to get money to pay Jesus' share of Temple tax from the mouth of a fish (Matthew 17:24-27). Then, Jesus discussed with the Disciples which of them would be the greatest.

Then, Mark 9:38-41 and Luke 9:49-50 had the Disciples point out to Jesus a man, who was not a fellow follower of Jesus but who was exorcising demons in Jesus' name. Jesus told the Disciples to let the man continue, because he was on their side. Matthew skipped that, but he did make an earlier reference within the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus claimed that some people who cast out demons in His name would ultimately face damnation (Matthew 7:21-23). (I think this suggests that Matthew was less tolerant of non-followers, as was also shown in Matthew 12:30.)

From there, Matthew and Mark continue on together, while Luke takes a different path, as we will see below.

Cut Off Your Reason

If you have read the Gospels, you may know that Jesus said some rather controversial things. Some of those were scandalous for their time, while others rub our modern sensitivities a little raw. Well, as it turns out, some things recorded by Mark may have even been too controversial for Matthew and Luke to use in their Gospels. We will see this evidence, and a glimpse of the birth of Hell, as we dig into this study.

Our study begins as a continuation of the previous conversation, where Jesus had used a child to illustrate how His followers were to humble themselves if they truly wanted to be great. In the continuation, Matthew 18:6-7 and Mark 9:42 have Jesus explain that the fate of someone who caused "one of these little ones" (meaning either literally children or figuratively meek and humble people) to sin would be much worse than a forced drowning.

Curiously, this is a case where we can see Luke's editing in action, because he makes a glaring mistake in doing so. You see, Luke also has that same content, but he moved it eight chapters later than the earlier conversation. So while Luke 9:46-48 has the discussion where Jesus used the child, Luke 17:1-2 is where the conversation continued. In its later position, the two verses are completely removed from their supporting context, so you have no idea what Luke's Jesus means when He says "one of these little ones." Why would Luke do such a thing? We may have our answer as we continue.

The topic of the fate of those who encourage sin is a convenient segue for Jesus to speak about the seriousness of sin. How serious is it? Well, in Matthew 18:8-9 and Mark 9:43-49, sin is so serious that Jesus recommended self-mutilation of any particular body part that caused you to sin.

Wait. What? Yes, cut off your hand or gouge out your eye if either causes you to sin.

Surely that would be too pernicious for Jesus to say and mean literally, right? Surely we all know that Jesus is just metaphorically saying that you should take extremely aggressive measures to avoid the temptations of sin, right? Possibly, but that does not stop the occasional Christian lunatic from trying to chop of his own, um, sinful parts. Plus, something about that message was apparently too controversial to Luke, because he chose to edit it out from his Gospel, and completely relocate its preceding context, as mentioned above!

On the other still-attached hand, Matthew was far from embarrassed by the message. Instead, he liked it so much that he also aggregated it into the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:29-30). Perhaps Matthew better understood this metaphorical message and the type of extreme behavior it warranted than did Luke, as is suggested later in his unique content in Matthew 19:12, where Jesus says:

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” NIV

Matthew's Jesus said to live like a eunuch for the sake of Heaven if you can, not to become an actual eunuch.

Yet Matthew was not keen on everything Mark recorded in this episode. Per both Matthew and Mark, the reason for the (metaphorical) self-mutilation was that it was better to enter into God's Kingdom as a cripple than to have your whole body thrown into "Hell," but what the Hell did that mean exactly?

Gehenna to Hell in a Hand-basket
The concept of Hell evolved within Christianity, and that evolution can be traced within the Gospels to some extent. The Gospel of Mark has obvious primacy to the other Gospels, so it should point us to the earliest concept of Hell; or whatever fate awaited the unsaved.

Indeed, "Hell" appears three times in Mark, and all within this section: Mark 9:43, Mark 9:45, and Mark 9:47. But the word "Hell" is a translation of the Greek word "Gehenna," which is itself thought to be a transliteration of the Hebrew phrase for "Valley of Hinnom."

The common theory is that Gehenna references a valley to the south of Jerusalem where trash, and some corpses, were burned continually, and thus would have provided Jesus' audience with a very visible concept of their fate if they rejected God. The strange thing is that neither archeology nor other written records have not been able to verify the smoldering trash heap within the Valley of Hinnom contemporaneous with Jesus. That Gehenna is a fable.

The reality is that the Valley of Hinnom had already been tainted by past events and not-quite-fulfilled prophesies. 2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Jeremiah 7:31, and Jeremiah 32:35 all record how the valley was used for child sacrifice to pagan gods, particularly Molech. As you may imagine, God was pretty angry about that, and so in Jeremiah 7:32-33 He swore:

"So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call it Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom (a.k.a. Valley of Hinnom), but the Valley of Slaughter, for they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. Then the carcasses of this people will become food for the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away." NIV

If that is not repulsive enough for you, go to Jeremiah 19 to read a slightly longer, slightly more-gory version of the same prophesy. These prophesies were made to the Israelites allegedly before their Babylonian exile. While God failed to turn that valley into the necropolis which He described, the Israelites were indeed conquered after a bloody war and a siege of Jerusalem. Regardless of the actual outcome, the Scriptural connection had been made between the Valley of Hinnom, a.k.a. Gehenna, and the concept of the Valley of Slaughter.

Mark was using that connection of Gehenna to a place of great slaughter, but with a different prophesy. Depending on which Bible translation you read, in Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, and Mark 9:48 you will find the phrase after the mention of Gehenna:

where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' NIV

Here, Jesus is making a partial quote of Isaiah 66:24, which is part of a yet unfulfilled prophesy. Bingo! We have meaning! Isaiah 66:24 is the last line of a prophesy which begins in Isaiah 65. While I encourage you to read the whole delightful prophesy yourself, you can get a sense of the Hell Mark had in mind by reading the last three verses, Isaiah 66:22-24:

"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before Me," declares the Lord, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before Me," says the Lord. "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against Me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." NIV

That certainly is a charming picture of the "afterlife," right? The "new heavens and the new earth" is nothing more than God saying that He will establish a new kind of order on earth. That order will last forever, and if you are worthy, your name (not you personally) will last forever as well through your descendants in a world where everyone worships God. The bodies of those who rebel against God will be on display in a worm-eaten, fire-burnt state.

That is Mark's Hell. That is his fate worse than drowning. Your dilapidated corpse will be a shameful spectacle to subsequent, God-worshiping generations. It exists side-by-side with his version of Salvation.

Perhaps that concept of the land of Salvation and Hell being in close proximity was too disturbing for Matthew, because he severed the link to Isaiah's prophesy by editing it out Jesus' quote. But Matthew did really like Mark's Hell, ultimately using Gehenna seven times; more than any other Gospel.

Yet by the time Matthew and Luke got around to writing their Gospels, the concept had been altered; Hellenize and relocated to some underworld using the Greek word "Hades," as we find in Matthew 11:20-24 and Luke 10:13-15 where Jesus said that on Judgement Day, Capernaum would "go down to Hades." Luke would push that theme even further, providing an explicit conceptualization of Hades as a place of eternal torment in the parable of the rich man and beggar Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31.

There is a Hell of a lot more to discuss about this evolution, but we will save that for another time.

Tasting a Deceased Kingdom

'
Background
In our studies, we are turning back to the Synoptic Gospel timeline now, where recently Jesus had asked His disciples who they thought that He was. When Simon replied that Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus renamed Simon as Peter and claimed that Peter would be given the keys to Heaven. From then on, Jesus told His disciples about how He would be killed in Jerusalem and resurrected on (Matthew 16:21, Luke 9:22) or after (Mark 8:31) the third day.

According to Matthew 16:22-23 and Mark 8:32-33, Peter rejected Jesus' vision for the future, so Jesus called him Satan and told him to get out of the way. (Of course, with this incident juxtaposed to Jesus having given Peter the keys to Heaven, this seems to be more evidence suggesting poor aggregation by Matthew of that prior episode.) Luke edited out Jesus calling Peter Satan from his Gospel, probably due to the harshness of such a rebuke or the theological problems it creates.

Tasting a Deceased Kingdom

"Faith is believing in something you know ain’t so." - Mark Twain

Mark Twain was a brilliant satirist. There is no doubt about it, and not just because of his views on religion. With his quote in mind, we are going to take a closer look at some verses and their Christian interpretations, which they "know ain't so." Context defines their meanings, but reality proves them to be incontrovertibly wrong, so we will see the faith that they put into "alternative" meanings.

We will be examining Matthew 16:24-28, Mark 8:34-38 + Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:23-27. The accounts are principally the same, but there are some very notable differences, which I will discuss along the way.

In these passages, Jesus is speaking to His Disciples (Mark has Jesus addressing the crowd too) regarding what they need to do in order to be rewarded by God in the coming days. All three accounts agree (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, and Luke 9:23) that for someone who wants to be saved, "he must deny himself and take up his cross" and follow Jesus. Luke adds the word "daily" in there, presumably to emphasize the continuous commitment required.

There is a distinct ascetic undercurrent in the instruction to "deny" yourself. We have touched on this theme before in an earlier study on the Sermon on the Mount, where it was clear that Jesus' words encouraged living in poverty; and in another earlier the study regarding the First Mission, where from parallel passages in Luke we saw the call to forsake your family and possessions, and instead only focus on Jesus.

There are scant few Christians today who live ascetic lives, in complete devotion to Christ. The rest of Christianity has come to terms with the fact that such a lifestyle is not practical if the world is not ending anytime soon, and so they simply ignore these verses, or claim that they applied only the the Disciples, or modify the meanings. For example, John Gill claims that this meant to deny the "sinful self, ungodliness, and worldly lusts," but that interpretation is undermined by the verses which follow.

The next two or three verses (depending on the verse count) provide the familiar refrains of whoever seeks to save his life will loose it, but whoever loses his life for Jesus will gain (eternal) life, and it will profit a man nothing if he gains the world but loses his soul (Matthew 16:25-26, Mark 8:35-37, and Luke 9:24-25). In other words, forsake this life, and focus on the next one, because owning the entire world would not do you any good in the next life. So while Gill's version of "deny" was probably an aspect of that command, its full rendition is seen by the accompanying suggestion of actually losing your life for Jesus. This is far deeper than just trying to be a good little boy or girl who is unimpressed by materialism.

The next verse is the most varied in these passages; Matthew 16:27, Mark 8:38, and Luke 9:26. I will combine these three into one verse, and color-code it so that you can see the sources. What is common to all three will be in black. Matthew-only will be in red. Mark-only will be blue. Luke-only will be purple. Mark-Luke overlap will be in brown. Here are Jesus' composite words, in bold for enhanced color visibility:

"If anyone is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory and in His Father's glory with the holy angels, and then He will reward each person according to what he has done."

The differences in the versions are really trivial. Mark adds a little extra condemnation of the people of his time. Luke makes sure that Jesus gets His share of the glory too. Also, Mark and Luke emphasize how Jesus would be ashamed of those who were ashamed to follow Him, which is an implication of a judgement, and that same judgement is more-directly proclaimed in Matthew's exclusive words.

So we have a clear sense of that verse: It is referring to Jesus' Second Coming, and at that time Jesus will show up with angles and will execute judgement on all of mankind based on what they have done. This agrees with James 2:14-26, that it is what you do that matters, not just what you believe.

Continuing on, the next verse is where Christian interpretations really go haywire. There is much better consensus between Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 than with the last verse, but I will render another amalgam for you in the same color-coding as above:

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His/the Kingdom of God with power."

In context with the verse above, it is plainly evident that this is still referring to Jesus' Second Coming, when the actual Kingdom of God will become established. Furthermore, the establishment of that Kingdom would occur soon, at some subsequent time which was no farther away than one human lifespan.

The implicit fact that "some" would die before seeing the Kingdom also suggests that perhaps significant time would pass before the manifestation of the Kingdom, perhaps five to ten years, perhaps decades, but this could also be a reference to Judas Iscariot, the Disciple who would later kill himself before Jesus' resurrection due to the guilt of betraying Jesus. So this is a weak point at best.

When the Kingdom does come, this is going to be an unmistakeable event, as is implied from Mark's "with power," where the Greek word for power is "dunamei," which shares the same root for the English word "dynamite." In fact, seeing the Kingdom of God with power could be another way of saying that the Kingdom of God would be firmly established at that time, as opposed to just beginning.

The Second Coming and establishment of the actual Kingdom of God interpretation is so evident that John Gill begins his exegesis of Matthew 16:28 with its refutation: (punctuation slightly adjusted for clarity)

"...till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom;" which is not to be understood of [Jesus'] personal coming in His kingdom in the last day, when He will judge quick and dead...

You know you are in likely in trouble when you begin by explaining why something does not mean what it appears to mean, and even more so when you ignore its surrounding context.

To Gill's credit, he also later refutes the notion that this verse may be referring to the Transfiguration. Instead, Gill explains the meaning as:

...of the appearance of [Jesus'] kingdom, in greater glory and power, upon His resurrection from the dead, and His ascension to heaven; when the Spirit was poured down in an extraordinary manner, and the Gospel was preached all over the world; was confirmed by signs and wonders, and made effectual to the conversion and salvation of many souls; which many then present lived to see, and were concerned in: though [this verse] seems chiefly to have regard to His coming, to show His regal power and authority in the destruction of the Jews; when those his enemies that would not He should reign over them, were ordered to be brought and slain before Him; and this the Apostle John, for one, lived to be a witness of.

Gill covers here nearly all of the Christian explanations which I have countered on this verse. It is interesting that Gill does partially come to terms with Jesus coming with power, but mistakenly applies it to the destruction of the Jews. It was Titus who led the Roman legions against Jerusalem, not Jesus.

Matthew Henry does add a small tweak of interpretation with: (with which John Wesley also agrees)

At the end of time, [Jesus] shall come in His Father's glory; but now, in the fulness of time, He was to come in His own Kingdom, his mediatorial Kingdom.

So let us sum up the given Christian interpretations of seeing Jesus coming in His Kingdom with power, and refute them as we go:

• The Transfiguration (sometimes thought of as a glimpse of Heaven or and emblem of what was to come, but has nothing to with the establishment of the Kingdom)
• Jesus' Resurrection (has nothing to do with seeing Jesus come in His Kingdom)
• Jesus' Ascension into Heaven (has Jesus going somewhere else, not coming in His Kingdom)
• Pentecost (has nothing to do with seeing Jesus or His Kingdom*)
• When the Gospel message was preached to the world (has nothing to do with seeing Jesus come in His Kingdom with power*)
• When the Roman legions, under the command of Titus, crushed the Jewish rebellion and destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (has nothing to do with seeing Jesus come in His Kingdom)
• When Jesus established His "mediatorial" Kingdom (which nobody can actually see)

The "*" flagged points indicate a possible alternative definition; that gaining believers and building the "kingdom" of the church was seeing Jesus coming in His Kingdom. This is the "faith" which I spoke of in the beginning of the post, because Christians choose to isolate this verse from the context of the preceding one in order to make this interpretation, which they know is not the way that they should be reading the Scriptures. Furthermore, they have to isolate this verse from Jesus' message which He began proclaiming at the very start of His public ministry, with its associated prophesies, in order to maintain that position. Jesus said the time has come for judgement and the establishment of the Kingdom of God, but Christians have faith that He meant something else.

Wanting Judgement

'
Background
John the Baptist, upon hearing about Jesus preaching and working miracles in Galilee, sent messengers to question whether or not Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus performed some more miracles and preached to the poor as proof of who Jesus was for those messengers. Jesus then explained to the crowds around him that John the Baptist was Elijah, who had been prophesied to return to prepare the way for God. Then Jesus described that generation as being like a bunch of fickle children who could never be satisfied (Matthew 11:16-19, Luke 7:31-35).

Wanting Judgement

One of the crafted, and heavily promoted, images of God in modern Christianity is of a loving father. God's love is so great for us all, that He sent His son to die for us (John 3:16), and He is not willing that any of us would perish (Matthew 18:14, 2 Peter 3:9). Such strong love and devotion! We will surely see that God is doing everything He can to save each and every one of us! Or will we? Let us take a closer look.

Matthew 11:20-24 (and the parallel in Luke 10:13-15) tells us about how Jesus condemned the cities of Korazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, just like He had instructed the Apostles to do. Why would Jesus condemn them? Because Jesus had worked miracles there, but they still did not repent.

I am not sure about you, but if I was God, in the form Jesus, or a burning bush, or whatever shape du jour, I can think of some rather incredible miracles with which I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that, well, that I was God. When you are not subject to the laws of nature, when you can bend time at your will, when the most solid matter is nothing but primordial ooze to be formed and spirited according to your desires, you can be very influential.

Who knows? Maybe Jesus worked these kinds of truly incredible miracles which only God could do, and yet the people did not repent. Maybe He did do all that He could do, not willing that any should perish. Or maybe he just worked the type of miracles discussed with John the Baptist's messengers; healing people, the kind of miracles which could easily be faked with the right setup of some planted accessories and corroborators, the kind of miracles which happen on a daily basis in modern hospitals at the hands of doctors. That is not to say that such acts would be unimpressive, just that they are, shall we say, lesser miracles in the grand scope of what would be possible for God.

Regardless of what miracles they were, Jesus clearly thought that they should have been enough to turn their hearts. In Matthew 11:21/Luke 10:13, Jesus says that had those same miracles been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented. (God had Tyre and Sidon destroyed per the prophesy of Zechariah 9:1-7.)

What? Tyre and Sidon could have been saved with a little divine intervention? And God knew this? Why would God not have stepped in to save them then? Who knows? God is omniscient. Maybe God knew that Tyre and Sidon would have soon backslid, and would have perpetrated some greater evil on the world if left unstopped. Let us give God the benefit of the doubt here, until a couple verses later...

In Matthew 11:23, we find Jesus saying:

“...If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.” NIV

Sodom had been so wicked that God did not wait to send an invading army in to capture them, like He later did with Tyre and Sidon. Instead, Sodom, and a similar city named Gomorrah, were so bad that God personally obliterated them with raining burning sulfur from “the heavens” (Genesis 19:24-25). Yet here in the New Testament, Jesus said that had there been a little divine intervention, a little showing of some miracles, Sodom would have repented so much that they would still have existed to the times of Jesus.

Apparently, God is indeed very willing that some should perish. Maybe Sodom perished with a purpose, and that through Sodom's destruction, many more were moved to repentance than would have otherwise, perhaps even outnumbering those who were in Sodom and those who would have been there in later generations. Maybe. But this shows God to use a motivation of fear, not love. It demonstrates that God has a Machiavellian ends-justify-the-means type of modis operandi. Plus, it proves that God is willing to let some perish under the right circumstances, displaying a moral relativism.

Quickly, we should ponder the condemnation of towns themselves. As discussed in the study about Jesus telling the Apostles to condemn towns, this implies an immediacy to the coming Judgement. Over long periods of time, the residents of the towns change completely. It would be unfair for Jesus to condemn the great grand-daughter of someone who was not impressed by Jesus' miracles, so Jesus' city-wide condemnation carries with the implication that Judgement Day will occur within one generation.

Extra Credit: Textual Study
Luke was an editor. Or, at least the author of Luke was an editor. While he was not an eye-witness to Jesus, it is suggested by believers and Luke 1:1-4 that his Gospel was derived from investigative reporting of eye-witness accounts. Who was that, or who were those eye-witnesses, nobody knows, but some people of faith make the case that there are enough differences to suggest that neither Matthew nor Mark were direct sources for Luke. From this perspective, there are several unique eye-witness accounts to give inherent credibility to the Gospel story. However some Christian scholars, and skeptics as well, theorize that both Matthew and Luke were assembled using the Gospel of Mark and perhaps some version of another non-extant document, often referred to as Q. Why would they think this? Take a look at these passages for an example:

Matthew 11:21-23 (NIV)	Luke 10:13-15 (NIV)
"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths...	"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.

Of the 75 words, 67 words are identical, with only eight different words (in bold). The differences are easily explained:

The word “sitting” added in Luke is a clarification. The “I tell you” in Matthew is a kind of a flavor phrase, if you will, not at all altering the meaning by its absence in Luke. Matthew's “on the day of judgment” is essentially the same as Luke's “at the judgment,” and really only demonstrates Matthew's preference for the phrase “day of judgment,” with Matthew's Gospel being the only one to use the words “judgment” and “day” in the same sentence, and he used “day of judgement” multiple times (Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:22, Matthew 11:24, Matthew 12:36).

For the words, their order, and their sentence structure to match this closely, with the minor exceptions of the preferences of the authors, it strongly suggests that both parties got there information from a single source. That source could be actual eye-witness memory of what Jesus said, or it could be a single document.

Memory is notoriously faulty, but you have to remember (wink) that back in those days, when paper was still a luxury and there were far fewer everyday distractions, memory was relied on to a much greater extent than now. As with any regularly practiced skill, memory of the general population was probably more acute back then. It is possible that eye-witness memory could have been that precise, especially in the context of a highly unusual event, like God becoming a man for example. ;-)

However, memory is undermined by itself in this case. First, the context Matthew wraps around these verses is that Jesus has sent out the Twelve Apostles on their first mission, and so Jesus had been wandering around Galilee alone, preaching and working miracles. According to Luke, the Twelve Apostles had gone out on and returned from their mission, Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish, Peter identified Jesus as the Messiah, Jesus got Transfigured, Jesus exorcised a demon from a boy, Jesus was rejected in Samaria, and (finally) we find these verses where Jesus was giving instructions for 72 other disciples to go out on a mission. Matthew does not mention the mission of these 72 disciples at all. So we are expected to believe that the eyewitnesses could remember the words perfectly, but the memories of the events leading up to and the surrounding context of those words were a little hazy.

Second, if this was from such a precise memory, how is it possible that Luke version completely omits the content in the second half of Matthew 11:23 as well as all of the content of Matthew 11:24 in regards to how Sodom would have repented, which was part of this same speech from Jesus? It is unlikely that an eye-witness simply did not remember, having remembered the preceding so perfectly.

So the eye-witness memory theory seems unlikely. What about the Q source document theory? What if this Q document was just a collection of random events, sayings, and episodes associated with Jesus which the authors of Matthew and Luke had to puzzle together into some cohesive story? What if this snippet of Jesus condemning cities had no surrounding context in that Q document, leaving it at the author's discretion as to where it fit? Under the Q theory, the precision of the words are no mystery, nor is it surprising that this section would show up in completely different locations in these two Gospels.

Even with the Q theory, one mystery still remains: Why did Luke skip out on the last part of the message regarding Sodom? One answer is that it may not have been in the Q, but was added by Matthew. Another answer is that the author of Luke edited out those lines based on the theological difficulties which we discussed above, because it clearly demonstrates that God could have saved people but chose not to do so. I lean towards the second answer, based on the fact that Luke appears to have edited other parts as well, such as the verses regarding Jesus' condemnation of divorce. Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-12 record that Jesus said that Moses was the source of permission of divorce, which was not accurate to the Scripture which clearly has God establishing that divorcement. Luke sidesteps this difficulty by trimming the passage down to a one-liner (Luke 16:18) which avoids mentioning Moses at all.

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 Kingdom of God Is Near What?

'
Background
In the New Testament, Matthew 4:17 and Mark 1:15 both record that Jesus' first preaching topic was that the Kingdom of God was near. Acts 1:3 tells us Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God for 40 days after His resurrection, and Acts 1:7 records Jesus' second to last sentence He spoke on earth dealt with the time of the coming of the Kingdom of God. Sandwiched between these bookends of Jesus' earthly life you will find over a hundred references to the Kingdom of God within the four Gospel accounts.

The Old Testament never once uses the phrase “Kingdom of God”, but it does contain the concept of it in various forms. Here are just a few selections from many possible Old Testament examples of what God's Kingdom is: everything (Psalm 103:19), pre-exile Israel (1 Chronicles 28:5), or post-exile Israel (Isaiah 51:3-4). It is the last example which is tied into the New Testament's Kingdom of God, because many of the prophesies of the Prophets did not come completely true after the Jews returned from their Babylonian exile, and so the Jews were anxiously awaiting the fulfillment of these prophesies for prosperity of their nation, eternal peace, and many other blessings.

The Kingdom of God Is Near What?
When you read the Gospels, it almost seems like whenever Jesus was not performing miracles, giving moral teachings, or being crucified, He was talking about the “Kingdom of God”; elaborating on matters such as when will it be established, how you can get in, and what it is like.

Did Jesus know what He was talking about? If so, we should expect a fairly consistent viewpoint expressed throughout, as well as a meshing with the prophesies of the Old Testament (OT) with regard to this imminent Kingdom.

The Kingdom of God is Near

In a previous study where we focused more on the timing aspect, we observed that Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God would be established during that generation. So when the phrase “the Kingdom of God is near” is used (Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 10:7, Mark 1:15, Luke 10:9, Luke 10:11, Luke 21:31), it appears that “near” refers to time as opposed to location, as in the Kingdom of God would be established soon. This message of timing is fairly consistent throughout the Gospels and is echoed throughout the rest of the New Testament (NT), such as in Revelation 22:7.

There Will Be a Judgement

In that same previous study, we discussed some of the OT prophesies associated with the Kingdom. The Kingdom would be established with a big judgement, which Jesus' words also support (Matthew 10:14, Matthew 12:41-42, Matthew 13:41, Matthew 13:49-50, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 22:11-13, Matthew 23:35-36, Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26, Luke 10:10-11, Luke 11:31-32, Luke 11:50-51).

There Will Be Eternal Peace

The Kingdom is supposed to be eternally peaceful, and ruled from the throne of David too. Strangely, Jesus does not directly mention peace in the Kingdom, but Luke 1:32-33 does mention the eternal ruling from the throne of David. Jesus also mentions eternal consequences, both good (Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-31, Luke 10:25-28, Luke 16:9, Luke 18:18-30, John 3:14-16, John 3:36, John 4:13-14, John 4:36, John 5:24, John 6:27, John 6:35-58, John 6:68, John 8:34-36, John 10:28, John 12:25, John 12:49, John 14:16, John 17:2-3) and bad (Matthew 18:8, Matthew 25:41, Mark 3:29, Mark 9:43-48).

On a side note, did you notice how often John's Gospel mentions eternal life compared to the other Gospels? While it permeates John, it is scarcely mentioned in the others. This huge difference could easily be explained if John is a fabrication instead of a true account of an eye witness, or if the other three Gospels are complete fabrications.

Parable of the Growing Seed

In Mark 4:26-29, Jesus explains that the Kingdom of God is like a man that seeds his field, the seeds sprout and grow without the man, and then the man harvests his field when the grain is ripe. This parable only makes sense when referring to the constituents of the Kingdom, not the Kingdom itself. The man would be like a preacher, the seeds the people who receive the Gospel, and the ripe grains are the converted Christians or people ripe for conversion.

This parable seems a little contradictory to the message that “the Kingdom of God is near”, because it instead suggests that the Kingdom is already here and is slowly growing. If instead Jesus had said “the Kingdom of God is beginning” or “come be a part of the growing Kingdom of God” then this parable would seem more accurate.

Parable of the Mustard Seed

Jesus provides a parable about the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32, Mark 4:30-34, Luke 13:18-19), where the Kingdom is like a tiny mustard seed which then grows to be the biggest garden herb. That yields some interesting implications. Common explanations of this parable take a form that the mustard seed represents the Gospel news spreading from a small, humble beginning into a massive Kingdom of believers.

This parable implies that the pre-Jesus prophesies with regard to God's Kingdom were of little to no value, and instead the advancement of the Kingdom started with Jesus. And, again, this parable seems to suggest a growing constituency of an existing Kingdom as opposed to a coming Kingdom.

Perhaps even more interesting is the implication that there are other herbs in the garden coexisting with the mustard, or in other words, that there are other kingdoms which will coexist with God's Kingdom, but God's will be the biggest kingdom. Coincidentally, while it is not widely advertised, there are verses from some OT prophesies which would support the idea of multiple kingdoms peacefully coexisting with God's Kingdom, such as Isaiah 66:19, Jeremiah 33:9, and Micah 4:2-5.

Parable of the Yeast

In Matthew 13:33 and Luke 13:20-21, Jesus is recorded as saying that the Kingdom is like yeast which a woman worked into dough. Most Christian commentators take this to mean that the yeast is the Gospel message, and from a small source that message spreads to the entire world, or at least spreads to the Elect as represented by the lump of dough.

Consider a somewhat more literal, and more amusing, interpretation: The Kingdom of God is like a spreading fungus which converts what is pure and sweet (sugar) into something which causes some men to act irrationally (alcohol) while discharging waste products (carbon dioxide).

Of course, like the two parables above, this speaks of enlarging the constituency of a Kingdom which already exists, not about a Kingdom which was about to become established. At least this point of view is internally consistent, and depending on your interpretation of “the Kingdom of God is near” as well as the rest of the plan for the Kingdom, it is not necessarily contradictory.

Something Involving Demons

When the Pharisees called into question the authority by which Jesus drove out demons, Jesus replies that if He drives out demons with God's help, then the Kingdom of God has come to them (Matthew 12:22-28, Luke 11:14-20).

So somehow driving demons out a few people means that the Kingdom of God has come? Well, no. That's not at all what the OT prophesies predicted. Perhaps this was meant to be a warning, to tell the Pharisees that Jesus casting out demons through the power of God was a sign that the return of God ruling Israel was imminent, but the Kingdom has not yet come...

Here It Is, or There It Is? Neither and Never.

There is one final stop on our tour of the Kingdom of Jesus. It is the Kingdom of Jesus, because, as you will see, Jesus has stopped describing the Kingdom of God. Examine Luke 17:20-21:

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The Kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you." NIV

In other words, the Pharisees ask when will the Kingdom of God come, to which Jesus replies (seemingly to a different question altogether) that they will not see it because it will not be in some location, but rather it will be inside people (at least for the Elect). In this sense, the Kingdom of God is supposed to be the peace and joy that comes with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

It is rather silly that Jesus would have used the expressions “Here it is” and “There it is” because there was no question about where the Kingdom of God was to be. All of the OT prophesies reference this Kingdom as being centered in Jerusalem. Nobody would have questioned where it was. “When” was the question, not where. Jesus avoided answering that question, or perhaps instead suggested that it already existed.

More importantly, this is blatantly inconsistent with the OT prophesies. For instance, Isaiah 2:4 talks about this peace as a worldly peace as we would recognize it today, turning swords into plowshares and having no more wars, not as some warm and fuzzy inner peace. In turn, it is also inconsistent with the NT verses which concur with the OT prophesies, including some of the words of Jesus which we discussed above.

Conclusion
When you sum all of this information up, you get an interesting picture. You can see that Christianity tied itself to the OT prophesy to give it some intrinsic credibility. However, it also worked to redefine the common interpretation of those prophesies. Anything which could be applied to Jesus was kept intact, or at least included with biased and out-of-context relation (as we have seen in previous studies). Anything relating to the coming Kingdom of God was subdivided into two components (as we have seen in this study).

The first component of the redefined Kingdom was that of a growing spiritual constituency. This component internally changes people; bringing them into the Kingdom in the sense of being residents there, or at least future residents there.

The second component of the redefined Kingdom is actually the rest of the OT prophesies which have not yet been fulfilled. This is the actual physical manifestation of the Kingdom on earth (or maybe the “new earth”) where everyone will live in peace, experience no pain, etc.

While that two-part philosophy may have worked back in ancient time, it stands off as somewhat ridiculous now. Why ridiculous? Because none of the OT prophesies prophesied any waiting period, growing period, or maturing period for the Kingdom. They pretty much suggest that the Kingdom was coming in a serial progression; a Messiah shows up, God doles out judgement, Israel becomes eternally peaceful and prosperous. In fact, when you look at the OT prophesies in their actual context, such as Isaiah 51, they tend to suggest that the Kingdom was coming when the Israelites returned from their Babylonian exile.

Think about it. Why would God give a prophesy of something that was going to happen 2000 years (or more) after a different major event was going to happen without any mention of how long it would take? In other words, why would God give a prophesy about Jesus' second coming and the associated establishment of the Kingdom in the OT when God did not provide any OT prophesy in regards to waiting for a fungal bloom to populate the Kingdom before it would actually show up?

The original OT prophesies overshoot Jesus by about 2000 years, at least so far. To put this in perspective, most Bible scholars suggest that King David ruled Israel around 1000 BC. So now, the time from when supposedly Jesus died to today has been about twice as long from when God promised David that his lineage would rule Israel forever to when Jesus supposedly walk the earth. It appears that the Kingdom of God is near never.

John the Baptist Leads the Way?

'
Background
It is good to know at least a little about the fertile climate for the proclamation of many would-be Jewish Messiahs which existed around the time when Jesus supposedly entered the picture. The Roman occupation, with their Pagan practices, exploitation of resources, and often brutal governing, gave an impetus for Jewish unrest among pockets of the populous. Revolt and rebellion were constant threats, and such acts which were squashed unmercifully when possible.

The Jewish Messiah was to be an Anointed King, one which would rule the nation of Israel in a manner such that all the nations of the world would come to know God. Much, much more was associated with the coming Messiah, but I can't cover it all here. Suffice it to say, people were looking for him with desperation. In this vein, some rebels claimed to be the Messiah, either because they were deranged or in order to solicit support for their cause, such as one man who had claimed to be Moses resurrected, Simon of Peraea, and Athronges the shepherd.

Aside from the two major Jewish sects, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, several smaller ones splintered off; such as the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Nasaraioi, a.k.a. the Nazarenes (which would seed the Mandaeans). The Essenes were an ascetic, communal sect which shunned wealth, sex, and other carnal pleasures. John the Baptist is thought by many scholars to have been an Essene whom had left the communal life.

John the Baptist Leads the Way?
The first point on which all four Gospels converge is on how John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus' coming. Per Luke 1, we are told that John the Baptist is Jesus' cousin and we find the miraculous story of his birth. John 1:6-8 and John 1:15 record a couple of brief lines subjugating John the Baptist under Jesus. But, finally, all four accounts focus on John the Baptist at Matthew 3:1-12, Mark 1:2-8, Luke 3:1-19, and John 1:19-28. So what exactly do they agree on? Let's find out.

Let's start with Mark, the shortest account. In this segment, Mark is the only one of the four Gospels claiming that “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send My messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"”. That's good thing, because Mark is wrong. This is actually a mis-quote from Malachi 3:1, not Isaiah, and the “you” should be Me; with Me referring to God. The other Gospel reference for this quote is Luke 7:26-27, where Jesus is talking about John the Baptist. Jesus wisely leaves off the origin of the quote.

Does the Malachi 3:1 prophesy apply? If you will, take a moment to read Malachi 3. What you'll find is something which would be difficult to directly apply to Jesus. In fact, the entire first verse shuts out such an interpretation: “See, I will send My messenger, who will prepare the way before Me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to His Temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.” This verse, and the remainder of Malachi are quite clearly referring to how God will reenter the Temple of Jerusalem and dwell there like He used to do, and will provide judgement of the evildoers while He is there. God, through Malachi, even tells the Israelites that they should offer proper sacrifices in order for His return to occur.

In Malachi 4, God goes on to implore the Israelites to follow the laws which He gave to Moses, and He reveals that the messenger who will come before “that great and dreadful day of the LORD” will be Elijah, a Jewish prophet who (reportedly) had previously ridden to Heaven on a whirlwind (2 Kings 2). Contrary to this prophesy, John the Baptist openly admitted that he was not Elijah (John 1:21) and when Jesus appears, it is not a “great and dreadful day” because Jesus didn't dwell in the Temple passing judgement and He didn't restore Israel as the prophesy predicts.

Proceeding in the prophesy department, all four Gospels quote Isaiah 40:3 to some extent. Luke 3:4-5 goes two verses further, covering and misquoting Isaiah 40:3-5 with an obvious bias. Is this an applicable prophesy? Check out Isaiah 40. You'll see how this “voice” is supposed to be a comforter to the Israelites, to speak tenderly to them, and to tell them that the nation's sins have been paid for (twice!) and so God will come and rule them with His omnipotent glory. This is not exactly Jesus' intention revealed later in the Bible. Plus, if you look at Matthew's and Luke's quotes of John the Baptist, such as “You brood of vipers!”, you see that John the Baptist was reportedly not a gentle and comforting messenger, and his message was quite different than what one would expect from a fulfillment of Isaiah 40.

When you look at Isaiah 40:4, which Luke almost quotes correctly, this “voice” is supposed to do some major works; filling in valleys, leveling hills, etc. Even if that text is meant to be figurative, it speaks of awesome achievements, and perhaps even miracles. Contrary to Elijah, who raised a dead boy and parted the Jordan River among other miracles, John the Baptist is not noted for great achievements or miracles. Even the extent to which he reportedly prepared the Jews to receive their Messiah is questionable, given how the Bible records the Jewish reaction to Jesus.

Moving on, Matthew (3:1 + 3:6 + 3:11), Mark (1:4), and Luke (3:3) record that John the Baptist's baptism was for repentance and forgiveness of sins, while John's Gospel is silent on the reason for baptism. But when you think about it, this is an affront to Jesus' offer of salvation. After all, God had already created a way to atone for sins through the Temple sacrifices. So John the Baptist's baptism was essentially offering the same deal repackaged. John the Baptist's baptism provided the same type of forgiveness of sins, because we are told that only Jesus could permanently forgive sins.

If John the Baptist was really trying to prepare the way for Jesus, he should have been telling the Jews that the atonement through Temple sacrifices was imperfect, as sins will continually need sacrifices. He should have been urging the Jews to look to God to provide an ultimate sacrifice for the remission of all sins once and for all. The words of Hebrews 10 should have been rolling off his tongue, but they weren't. John the Baptist is reportedly inexplicably silent on how Jesus will revolutionize the forgiveness of sins.

Instead, Matthew (3:11), Mark (1:7), and Luke (3:16) record that John the Baptist's significant contribution in leading the way for Jesus was the baptism itself. (John's Gospel is again silent on the matter.) The water baptism which John the Baptist was performing was stated as a parallel of the baptism of the Holy Spirit that Jesus would provide, but this is incongruent for a couple reasons. The need for a foreshadowing parallel is strange in and of itself, as John the Baptist was a same-age contemporary of Jesus. Why foreshadow something which (relatively speaking) already exists? Also, it's a rather poor parallel when you consider that John the Baptist's baptism reportedly washed away sins while the baptism of the Holy Spirit supposedly fills you with the presence of God giving you Holy powers. These two are just a little different, don't you think? You could call the water baptism a prerequisite for the Holy Spirit baptism, but then that negates the utility of Jesus' death on the cross.

Curiously, Matthew's account (3:1) is the only Gospel claiming that John the Baptist said “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.” What makes this even more curious is that Matthew's Gospel is also the only one which records Jesus as saying this exact same line (4:17 + 10:7). However, while Mark and John are relatively quiet about it, both Matthew (3:7-12) and Luke (3:7-9 + 3:15-17) expound upon this apocalyptic theme in John the Baptist's message in identical words (except for a slight sandal variance), as if they came from the same source. We find words like “the coming wrath”, “the ax is already at the root”, and “His winnowing fork is in His hand”, imparting a sense of urgency that God's judgement is going to occur within the lifetime of John the Baptist's audience. Amazingly, close to 2000 years later, we're still waiting for that to happen. According to Deuteronomy 18:14-22 on discernment of false prophets, I guess that John the Baptist deserved to be killed.

As you can see from reviewing these Gospel accounts, while they mostly agree with one another, the associated prophesies (mis-quoted by the Gospels) don't seem to mesh with the Gospel accounts. At best, you could take the lines of the prophesies out of their context and applied some nuanced meanings to bring them into alignment. Yet still the effectiveness and utility of John the Baptist's efforts are questionable in preparing the Jews for Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke paint John the Baptist as claiming a very-soon-coming apocalypse, which never happened, and therefore brands him as a false prophet. So, did John the Baptist prepare the way for Jesus? In a word: No.

Footnotes
Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, records in Jewish Antiquities (c. 94 AD) that John the Baptist worked to promote “righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to Him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.” This is not exactly a message in line with Jesus' plan. Note that Josephus wrote long after these events had occurred, so his accuracy could be questionable. Plus, he was Jewish, not Christian, and therefore may have skewed the record with Jewish bias. And finally, some scholars believe that his original texts have been altered where they regard anything relating to Christianity.

It is peculiar that, if John the Baptist was really only there to promote Jesus, a sect would develop which would hold John the Baptist the greatest prophet of God while considering Jesus to be a false prophet. Such is the case with the Mandaeans.