And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come (John 1:15-51)

Can God be seen? This is actually a complicated question. Strictly speaking, except for in the person of Jesus, God doesn't have a physical body, so the answer is no. However... There are a lot of instances in the Bible where people see things that are a manifestation of God (that is, God makes something visible that is a representation of himself), or they have a vision of God (that is, they have something like a dream where they see something symbolic of God), or there is the strange instance in Exodus 33:18-23, which seems to be God somehow literally allowing Moses to see some sort of physical form. That latter one is the only one I have no explanation for, and I've always thought it was very weird since I read it as a kid. So for the other two, and the distinction between the verses in the two categories on that page, the general idea is when someone is "seeing" God on earth, they are usually seeing a light that is the glory of God's presence (this may also be the "burning bush" in Exodus 3, "a smoking furnace and a burning lamp" in Genesis 15:17, and the pillar of fire in Exodus 13:21), and when they are a prophet seeing God in an apparent physical body, they are having a vision, in which the things they are seeing are symolic (when Habakkuk saw horns in God's hands, horns are almost always symbols of strength). It's worth noting that most Christians, as I think I mentioned in my last entry, believe that the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament is a preincarnate Jesus. In such an appearance, often there is no clear distinction between the angel speaking and God speaking. It's also worth noting that while it doesn't say outright that Adam and Eve saw God, in Genesis 3, it seems that God is physically present in the garden of Eden in some form.

Was John the Baptist Elijah? There is really a verse that is missing from this page, and that's Luke 1:17,

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Generally, when there's confusion over a matter in the Bible, you go by what Jesus says. Jesus said John was Elijah (less directly in Mark 9:12), so he was. So why the confusion? Well, one explanation that I have heard--and I don't know how widely accepted this is that the spirit of Elijah was reincarnated in John, but John had no memory of his previous life. Strange to talk about reincarnation in a Christian context, I know, but I've heard it suggested, and it seems to fit the Luke verse.

Where did John baptize? on the face of it, there's no contradiction here, as "beyond Jordan" most likely simply means in the Jordan River, but on the east bank. However, there is the issue raised not on the linked page, but back in the footnote on the John 1 page, which points out that Bethabara (Βηθανια in my Greek version) is not known. My study guides say that "Bethabara" is Hebrew for "ferry-house" which would suggest perhaps that this was not so much a city as simply a place where one could cross the Jordan.

Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus as the Son of God? Yes, but obviously, some explanation is needed here. The verses in the "no" column are coming from John when he's locked away in prison. While he recognized Jesus's true identity at his baptism, he has to be wondering, if the Messiah has come, what am I doing behind bars? There are a couple of possibilities for this message here. One is sarcasm; John is calling out to Jesus and saying, "Hey, I'm in trouble! Are you the Messiah or not?" The other is desperation: because John is in this situation, he's starting to question himself and what he thought he saw. Either way, it's not really a contradiction.

Which came first: the calling of Peter and Andrew or the imprisonment of John the Baptist? There are two things that need to be said about the content of this page, and either or both could explain it. First of all, it should be noted that the so-called "calling" of Peter and Andrew here in John is not the same event shown in the other two Gospels; they look different, and I believe the events in Matthew and Mark happened later. It's worth observing that the behavior displayed by Peter and Andrew isn't the sort of behavior you would expect from people who didn't already have a history of interaction with Jesus; you don't just walk up to a stranger and say, "Follow me!" and have them come. The event in John's Gospel is just some of the people who would later be his Apostles meeting Jesus for the first time. They are "following him" in the sense that they want to see where he goes and what he does, not in the sense of yet being dedicated disciples. The second thing that needs to be said about John's Gospel in general is that John is not really trying to tell a linear story. Until we get to Palm Sunday, John's Gospel is just a bunch of stories thrown together in no particular order; once get to Holy Week, John is more concerned with getting events in order.

How did Peter find out that Jesus was the Messiah? This is actually a matter of understanding the difference between what's going on between these two verses. Yes, Peter's brother told him that Jesus was the Messiah, but I think the difference is that by the later time that Jesus is talking in Matthew 16, Peter had truly internalized the truth and fully believed in him. I mean, if you think about it, if someone just told you, "Hey, there's this guy, and he's the Messiah!" you would probably check it out, but questioningly. After you had been with Jesus for a while, heard his teaching and seen his miracles, you wouldn't be questioning any more.

How did Peter and Andrew become Jesus's disciples? Part of this I answered above: the story in Matthew and Mark happened later than the story in John. However, how does the story in Luke fit in? There are two possibilities. One is that Luke is simply telescoping events and Peter follows Jesus after this event, but not necessarily immediately. The other, which seems more likely to me, is that Luke is giving greater details of the story than Matthew and Mark did. This may be a bit strange, because as I may have noted when I went through Mark, it's generally understood that Mark's Gospel is largely made up of material Mark got from Peter.

Where did Peter and Andrew live? This is definitely unclear, but one thing that can be said about this inconsistency is that Capernaum and Bethsaida are right next to each other at the north end of the Sea of Galilee. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's more likely Mark made a mistake, since John was actually there.

Lastly in this chapter, the SAB notes that what Jesus tells Nathanael as a failed prophecy. I have to disagree with this assessment, of course. It could be that this prophecy was fulfilled and simply wasn't recorded by any of the four Gospels we have; Nathanael didn't write a Gospel. Much more likely, however, at least in my opinion, is that this is symbolic language, and Jesus is talking about some aspect of his ministry in which angels were involved in some way, and Jesus's incarnation in some way facilitated an opening of Heaven.

Behold, I will send Elijah the prophet (Matthew 11)

The first issue that the SAB brings up for chapter 11 is the unusual question that John the Baptist sends Jesus through his disciples, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" As the SAB points out, after what John saw at Jesus' baptism, it seems strange that he can he be so unsure. I've heard it suggested that this question is really intended to be read in almost a sarcastic tone. A lot of people expected the messiah to be a major political player, and while I don't know how much John was expecting this, he must be wondering how it could be that he's locked up in prison while Jesus is about. Apparently it was not part of Jesus' plan to get John out of prison, as John ends up dying there.

The SAB asks in response to verse 11, "Who was the greatest: Jesus, Solomon, or John the Baptist?" I don't think this is a contradiction, but if you want to make this sort of comparison, why not throw in Moses, as I'm sure you could dig up one or two verses in this strain. The reason I don't think this is a contradiction is that each of these men is considered the greatest not overall, but within certain constraints. Solomon was greatest in wisdom, John the Baptist was greatest in religious piety, and Jesus, being God in the flesh, is in a category of his own and can't be reasonably compared to anyone. (Yes, I know that Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31 are making that comparison, but you could think of it like comparing the world's smartest dog to the world's smartest person.) Verse 12 is another one that I'm with the SAB on, in that I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

Was John the Baptist Elijah? This is a tricky one, and the SAB actually supplies the answer in unusual style: Jesus said he was, so he was. I'm guessing that this is mentioned in a mocking matter, since the source of the contradiction is John's own denial in John 1:21. It does seem silly that John wouldn't know, doesn't it? I think that the real substance of the issue is symbolism vs. literalism once again. Jews are waiting for the prophet Elijah to return. Rather than dying, in 2Kings 2, Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind, and the prophet Malachi said (in Mal. 4:5) that he would come back before the "day of the LORD", which most took to be the time of the coming of the messiah. So in Jesus' day, many people were wondering how Jesus could be the messiah if Elijah had not appeared, and my take is that Jesus is saying that John the Baptist fulfilled the symbolic/prophetic role of Elijah. (For what it's worth, many Christians still believe that Elijah will literally return before Jesus comes back at the end of the world.)

In verses 21-24, Jesus seems to be condemning a number of cities for not responding to his preaching. I think this is another case, not of actually condemning, but of observing condemnation. That is, I don't think Jesus is saying he's going to punish these cities; he's saying that their lack of faith will end up being its own punishment in the end.

I'm pretty sure that I addressed the question of who is the lord of the earth back in chapter 4.

I will make the wilderness a pool of water (Exod 17)

Chapter 17 is a pretty easy one, so as I often do in such cases, I'm going to complicate things with my own comments on what I suggest the SAB might want to say.

First of all, it seems like verse 2 ought to be added to this page, although only if Wells is trying to be comprehensive in his citations. I think a lot of the time, he's just looking for a few good examples, but I'm not sure. It should be noted that he has mistakenly put Genesis 22:1 and 2Sam. 24:1 on this page, which I don't think he meant to. This verse would fit just fine, though. I suppose that since I therefore have not addressed this issue, I ought to here. I think the issue is not whether God can be tempted per se, but whether people will try to tempt God. One of the hard things about this concept is that "tempt" and "test" are largely used interchangeably, with some confusing results. God's certainly not going to be tempted into sin, which is the way we usually think of "tempting". However, God is certainly able to be tested; the only question is whether or not it's appropriate to do so at any given time or in any given manner. For some reason, throughout most of the wilderness wanderings of Israel, the kind of testing/tempting they were doing was inappropriate, while there are examples both of people testing God with positive results, and God actually ordering the people of Israel to test Him! Although the word "test" is not in that verse, the concept is pretty clear there, and I think Wells ought to consider adding it to the test page.

Really, I don't understand this well. I once heard a pastor who said that all testing of God is forbidden in the Bible except for what we find in Malachi 3:10. The guy was a great speaker, but I think he had forgotten Gideon, who doesn't really fit under this heading. (This is also akin to the story in Luke 1 which I really should have included in my "Christmas edition", in which one person gets in trouble for asking a question to an angel, and another person does not.) My only thought is that it has a lot to do with attitude. The Israelites were essentially saying, "Oh my gosh! Moses has led us out into the desert to die, and God doesn't care about us!" While people like Elijah tested God with an attitude more like, "I'm so certain that God is with me, that I'm willing to give him a test to show you!" This is only speculation on my part, but it makes some sense in that God seems to value faith very highly.

Now, Moses goes with the leaders of the tribes to this place where there is this rock that God says, "I will stand before thee there..." which I assume to be somewhat figurative; perhaps the pillar of smoke mentioned previously stopped at the rock. Moses hits the rock with the staff, and water comes out of it. "God is such a clever guy!" the SAB says. Yes, I suppose He is. Apparently, this is absurd to Steve Wells, but he doesn't explain why. I guess it's another case of anything miraculous is absurd. This is definitely meant to be a miracle, and aside from the obvious fact that it's supernatural for rocks to spew out water when hit, the fact that this staff is used is often an indication in the Torah that miracles are involved.

Shortly after this (although it's not clear, since the Bible isn't much on sequential storytelling) the Amalekites come to attack the Israelites. Apparently, the SAB deems fighting back against this attack to be cruel, unjust, and intolerant. Am I to take it then that they should have just let themselves be attacked?

Something miraculous seems to happen in this story. Moses goes up on a hillside, and holds up his staff. So long as the staff is over his head, the Israelites keep winning, when he puts it down, the battle turns on them. This may indeed be a miracle (remember what I said about the staff?) in which case it needs no further explanation. I do notice however that most of the miracles that Moses performs during his ministry are following an order from God to do them. No such order is mentioned here, and I wonder if it might have been a psychological morale-booster for the troops to see Moses holding up the staff? It's a possibility.

God tells Moses to write the story down "in a book," presumably this one we're reading now. I find this verse in itself to be an odd one, and it may be a Hebrew idiom that we don't fully understand, but God says essentially, "Make sure everyone remembers the Amalekites, because I'm going to make sure everyone forgets them." Huh? Sort of the reverse of Jesus' statement in Matthew 26, where He says the woman with the ointment will be remembered forever, but Matthew fails to tell us who the heck she was. (It may have been Mary, as a very similar story is told in John, and Mary is named there.) In any case, as I mentioned way back, Israel indeed had to keep fighting generation after generation of Amalekites, and yes, most of the time they had to do it without Moses' help.