By whose stripes ye were healed (Isaiah 53)

So, as I said in my last post, Isaiah chapter 53 is considered by most Christians to be a prophecy of Jesus's death. (It is considered by many Jews to be a prophecy of the Holocaust, and I don't want to diminish that, because it's a very reasonable interpretation; the Holocaust was unimaginably horrible and the Jews of Europe paid a tremendous price for fascist antisemitism. I can definitely see that interpretation, and even the possibility--as I have said elsewhere--that this is a prophecy about two completely separate things. However, I'm going to focus on how this fits Jesus's death.)

Verse three says:

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

This is fulfilled in how Jesus was eventually rejected by his own people and sent to be crucified:

Mark 15:12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? 13 And they cried out again, Crucify him. 14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.

Verses four through six talk about how Jesus died for the sin of the world, as summed up in 1 Peter 2:24 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." Perhaps Peter is actually quoting Isaiah 53:5 here.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Verses seven and eight:

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

This is quoted in Acts chapter eight:

Acts 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Verse nine:

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

This is prophetic of Jesus's burial, as he died between two thieves but was laid in the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea:

Matthew 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: 58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. 59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

The last three verses are reemphasizing that all that Jesus suffered was so he could be a sin offering:

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

As Paul says:

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

So all of that (and probably more) is why Christians believe this passage is about Jesus.

How beautiful are thy feet (Isaiah 52)

Isaiah chapter 52 is a short chapter, but it has a few verses that really belong with the next chapter, which is a controversial prophecy. The SAB calls this chapter boring, and indeed, there's not a lot going on here. Verse one says "henceforth" no uncircumcised people will come to Jerusalem, which the SAB notes is not true if you take henceforth to mean from the time of the writing of the prophecy; however, that may not be what it means. It may be referring to a time in the future, or perhaps even "uncircumcised" is poetic, meaning something more akin to the other term here, "unclean". Verse seven talks about "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings," which the SAB calls absurd, but clearly this is poetic, implying that the good tidings are what make the feet beautiful, not any actual physical characteristics of the feet. Verse ten is also marked as absurd, but I'm not at all sure why; I'm not sure what this verse really means, but it's clearly poetic as well, as really most of this chapter is. (I don't think watchmen will really be singing, which seems like a funnier picture to me than God's arm.)

Verses 13-15 really belong with the next chapter's narrative, which I'll deal with in my next post, but suffice it to say that Christians take this passage to be prophetic of the day of Jesus's death. Verse 14 talks about a person more beaten up than just about anybody, and Jesus was scourged and beaten in the face by soldiers. Jews believe this prophecy is about the Jewish people, many particularly the Holocaust. I'll perhaps discuss both of these views next time.

Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently (Isaiah 28)

Isaiah chapter 28 is a prophecy about Ephraim (a.k.a. Israel, the northern kingdom) that seems chiefly concerned with drunkenness. I discussed whether it's okay to drink alcohol in John chapter two, where I said it's okay in moderation; here in Isaiah, people are getting so drunk, they're apparently vomiting on everything (v. 8)! Also, priests and prophets are making poor decisions, which is very bad.

Anyway, after talking about all these drunks, Isaiah talks about how God is going to teach his law, mainly to children (v. 9). Much of this chapter talks about how important the law is, and there's a lot of repetition. The SAB notes that verse 16 is quoted in Romans 9:33, but incorrectly. A lot of the time when this sort of thing happens, it has to do with a variation in the Septuagint, which is the Bible New Testament authors would be quoting from, but looking at the Septuagint, I don't see where Paul got his quote. None of the commentaries I can access online has a full explanation for this, although some note that this is a quote of both Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14; this doesn't explain where "ashamed" comes from, however.

Out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice (Isaiah 11)

Isaiah chapter eleven for a turn is positive prophecy, seemingly about the Messiah and the end times. It opens talking about "a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots" which, as the SAB admits dubiously, is why Christians believe this is a prophecy about Jesus, who is a descendant of David son of Jesse. Will the Messiah be a descendant of David? I don't know why I didn't answer this in Mark chapter twelve, as that's where the key verse is that triggers this supposed contradiction. I mean, the answer is yes, but why does it seem like Jesus is arguing against it? I would suggest that the point Jesus is making is that the Messiah is not merely the son of David, but one who is greater than David, being also the son of God. Jesus is quoting Psalm 110, which I don't know whether Jews saw it as a Psalm about the Messiah, but it describes someone who David calls "my Lord" and "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (remember Melchizedek from Genesis chapter 14 was unique in the Bible for being both a king and a priest) so it's definitely someone important, and Jesus is implying it's the Messiah. Note also that Jesus implies David had the Holy Ghost, so perhaps that's another entry for the "When was the Holy Ghost given?" page?

Anyway, Isaiah talks about the righteousness of the coming Messiah, and how he will judge not just by looking and hearing. He will "smite the earth...and...slay the wicked" which prompts the SAB to ask, "Is this passage describing Jesus, the Prince of Peace?" Yes, sometimes in order to have peace, you need to get rid of wickedness; does that really not make sense? It seems almost obvious to me. The SAB also comments on the absurdity of him doing this "with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips", but this is just poetic, symbolic language that I believe is meant to imply the absolute authority of his words. In verse five, the SAB claims as an aside that the word translated "reins" actually means "kidneys", although I can't find any evidence of that myself; rather this word "חֲלָצָיו" seems to literally be another word for "loins". Isaiah then talks for a bit about predator and prey animals living in peace; apparently they will all become herbivores as "the lion shall eat straw like the ox." The SAB asks, "I wonder what will become of the spiders. Will they be friendlier toward flies? And will the parasitic wasps find another way to feed their larvae? Or will they continue to feed off the living bodies of caterpillars?" It's an interesting set of questions, and I assume the answer is yes, even insects and the like will also stop being predatory, and in some fashion parasites will also change or perhaps cease to exist; I think that's the general idea here.

While verse eight goes along with the general narrative of the previous verses, I feel I should give it special attention just because of the mention of the "cockatrice". Yes, the SAB gives the correct definition of this animal, and it's something peculiar to the KJV (although not entirely unique) that there are various mentions of mythical beasts throughout the text, this being (I think) the first time it's come up in a passage I'm blogging. The KJV mentions cockatrices four times, satyrs twice, unicorns nine times, and dragons 35 times; there may be other mythical beasts that I'm not aware of (not to mention beasts particular to Hebrew culture such as the Leviathan and Behemoth). I think particularly in the case of the Hebrew, it's a bad guess at what the original word meant; I don't know if the translation team believed these creatures to be real. (And really, translation of an ancient language can be tough; a lot of modern translations chose "viper" here, but Isaiah later (59:5) talks about "cockatrice's eggs", but vipers are viviparous animals apparently, so...?) In any case, I think the thing that needs to be said is that it's not always clear what animal the Hebrew is talking about, and even if it might be referring to a mythical beast, there is such a thing as poetic license and symbolism (I think most of the mentions of dragons in the book of Revelation are properly translated, and the picture of a dragon is symbolic) that allows for it. Here in Isaiah, however, I think we're just looking at a poor translation choice; cockatrices certainly do not exist, nor have they ever, and I doubt that Isaiah had ever heard of such a creature. (Although who knows? The Wikipedia article on the cockatrice mentions that there was a folk belief in Egypt that Ibis eggs could possibly produce a venomous snake-bird hybrid. If it's old enough, the Israelites might have heard of it?) Anyway, the Hebrew word here is also found in Proverbs 23:32, where the KJV chooses the word "adder" instead, so make of that what you will.

Speaking of mythology, verse twelve talks about returning the people of Judah "from the four corners of the earth." This seems to be a pretty literal translation from the Hebrew and not an English phrase, so does Isaiah think the earth is flat? It's possible, but I find it really unlikely, given the fact that evidence of the earth's curvature is pretty readily available to people of any tume and culture, such as seeing ships disappear over the horizon, or seeing the shadow of the round earth pass over the moon during an eclipse. Of course people even in the present day believe in a flat earth, so anything is possible. I just don't think this particular phrase proves anything.

Verse 14 talks about Judah subduing the Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites. The SAB assumes this is talking about war, but Isaiah never says that there's any violence in so many words, so I'm not 100% sure that's right. It's certainly not an unreasonable assumption under normal circumstances, but this verse seems to be talking about the end times, and there's a lot of supernatural stuff going on in those days. Nonetheless, I think the book of Revelation does say that there are battles at certain times in the last days, so it's certainly possible that's what's going on here, and yes, the Messiah would lead the army. Yes, verse 15 is talking about the Red Sea and the Euphrates River, and some translations of this verse go ahead and spell it out for the reader. It seems from verse 16 that God's attack on these bodies of water serve the purpose of the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus: to facilitate bringing the Israelites home from exile.

The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh (Isaiah 9)

Isaiah chapter nine is another very bleak chapter, for the most, although the beginning bit is positive. There is a prophecy that seems to be of the Messiah, although the SAB disputes this because (I guess?) in the New Testament, Jesus is never known by any of the names in verse six. I wonder who else it could be, though, as there are parts that seem they couldn't fit anyone else. A child born who is known as "The mighty God"? (I checked the Hebrew, and there's no ambiguity.) And he sits "upon the throne of David...henceforth even for ever"? That's Jesus. I assume these names (which modern-day Christians use for Jesus) are going to be used in later times, perhaps particularly the "end times". I addressed what Jesus's name is in John chapter one.

Now on to the bleak part. Isaiah speaks once again of a day when Judah will be attacked, and bad times will follow. God won't even show mercy to the most vulnerable of society, because apparently everyone is evil. "[N]o man shall spare his brother" probably doesn't mean literally people are attacking their near family, but rather Jews are attacking Jews. On the other hand "they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm" may actually be a euphemism for people eating their own children, which is arguably worse. Much of this is marked by the SAB with cruelty, injustice, and intolerance, and it's arguably so, but once again, this is a nation that turned its back on God and did evil things, and this is just the consequences.

They shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (Isaiah 7)

Isaiah chapter seven should be interesting, as it has a prophecy supposedly about Jesus, although there is some controversy, which the SAB brings up, and we'll discuss when we get there.

So, in the time of king Ahaz of Judah, Israel (the northern kingdom, separate from Judah, often called "Ephraim") tries to attack Judah with the help of Assyria. Ahaz finds out that Israel is getting help from Assyria, and is troubled. God tells Isaiah to go and talk to Ahaz and reassure him that they won't prevail. The SAB notes that in 2Chronicles 28, Ahaz is actually taken captive by Israel and Assyria, so is this failed prophecy? Well, I'd want to look into whether these nations defeated Judah as a whole, which they did not in the end, although that surely was no consolation for Ahaz; the whole of 2Chronicles 28 goes into detail about the sins of Ahaz, and how he turned to the gods of Assyria for help instead of the God of Israel. But back to our current story... Isaiah tells Ahaz that in 65 years, Israel/Ephraim will be destroyed.

God challenges Ahaz to suggest a sign, pretty much saying "The sky's the limit!" but Ahaz declines to choose. So God tells Ahaz that the sign will be that a "virgin" will conceive and give birth to a son named Immanuel. This prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 is quoted in Matthew 1:23 as a prophecy of Jesus's birth. Now the SAB has some notes about this prophecy that are worth reviewing. First of all, there is some dispute about the word translated "virgin" here; despite what the SAB says, "עַלְמָה" is an ambiguous Hebrew word that can mean either "virgin" or "young woman". So how do we know which was meant? Well, long before Jesus's time (nearly 300 years), Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and translated this ambiguous Hebrew word "עַלְמָה" into "παρθένος", which definitely means "virgin", so it's actually not the fault of the KJV translation team (it's also "virgo" in the Latin Vulgate, which was likely one of the sources used). There are very few Bible translations that render this word "young woman" although many have a footnote saying it's a possible meaning. As the SAB itself points out, a prophecy of a "young woman" conceiving isn't much of a prophecy, as that happens every single day. But let's talk about the second point, which is that Jesus was born hundreds of years after Ahaz, so it's not much of a sign anyway. I'm pretty sure I have mentioned that sometimes prophecy has multiple times it's fulfilled, and this prophecy is apparently one with that quality. There must have been a woman who was a virgin who conceived and had a child named Immanuel in Ahaz's time. This may have not been miraculous; perhaps she was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, but conceived in the normal fashion, thus giving a time frame for the sign: about nine months. Yes, as the SAB points out, there's no mention in the book of Isaiah of this birth actually happening, but that doesn't personally bother me; it was a private sign for Ahaz, so perhaps Isaiah himself never saw it. Third point on this prophecy is one that many people point out; Jesus was never called Immanuel other than in Matthew 1:23 where the prophecy is quoted. However, it is quoted there with a note in the Greek; it says, "...they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." No, Jesus is never called by the name Immanuel/Emmanuel, but being God in human form, he definitely was known as "God with us." The rest of the prophecy talks about the boy eating "butter and honey" which prompts the SAB to ask about dietary restrictions, which I addressed in Genesis chapter nine, but I don't think this verse really is an issue with the topic, nor do I think Jesus was a vegetarian, because it probably would have been mentioned somewhere in the gospels.

At the end of the chapter, it says essentially that God will send insects from Assyria and Egypt (bees and flies respectively) which somehow seems to add to the desolation. It also says the people will shaved by the king of Assyria on their beards and feet; feet don't have a lot of hair, but the SAB suggests "feet" is a euphemism for genitals, which is entirely likely. It sounds like finally, there is some restoration of the keeping of livestock, but not agriculture, and people will largely live on butter and honey.

And the voice of God answered him (Acts 9)

Acts chapter nine is where the story really pivots and follows Paul, here still known as Saul. (I don't think we're ever given a specific time when or reason why he changes his name, but maybe I forgot and we'll get to it.) So Saul is working hard at persecuting Christians and apparently now the Jewish leaders have some pretext for throwing them in prison, although I don't think it's made real clear what that is. He gets a letter from the high priest explaining that he can do this and heads to Damascus. On the way to Damascus, he has a vision; a bright light shines from the sky and apparently the voice of Jesus speaks to him and convinces him to cease his persecution and become a Christian. He is temporarily blinded. Did the men with Paul hear the voice? There's a standard explanation for this apparent discrepancy, and that is that while the men heard the voice, they didn't hear the actual words that were spoken; it was just a noise to them. I don't know if there's anything in the Greek that supports that, but there it is. Were the men with Paul knocked to the ground? Yes, the response to this is that just because it's not mentioned in this chapter doesn't mean it didn't happen. The assumption is that the voice knocked them down, and then they stood up again.

So Saul has to be led to Damascus, and he remains blind for three days, during which time he doesn't eat or drink. It's not specified whether Saul had chosen to fast, or if he couldn't eat because of shock. Nearby, a Christian named Ananias has a vision in which "the Lord"--assumedly Jesus--speaks to him and tells him to go find Saul and lay hands on him to restore his sight. Ananias is hesitant, and essentially asks if going to Saul is safe. The Lord tells him that Saul is going to be some sort of super missionary, and Ananias goes. Ananias lays hands on Saul, giving him his sight and the Holy Ghost, and Saul is baptized. After spending a few days hanging out with the believers in Damascus, he starts preaching the gospel in the synagogue, and now the Jews want him dead, so he has to be snuck out of the city in a basket. Did Paul go to Jerusalem immediately after his conversion? There is no contradiction here, because there is no time frame given in Acts; it doesn't say "immediately" here. Did Paul visit all of the disciples when he went to Jerusalem after his conversion? Well, it never says "all", but Luke certainly makes it sound like it's more than two Apostles. I wouldn't say it's a clear contradiction, but it's certainly confusing, and the SAB page should say "Apostles" rather than "disciples" which is obviously not true.

The chapter ends with some miracles by Peter. He cures a man of palsy in Lydda, and raises a woman from the dead in Joppa. As with pretty much all miracles, the SAB marks these with "absurdity" and "science". Jesus said the disciples would do greater works than him, and it certainly seems that way.

And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed (Acts 7)

I'm not sure why Acts chapter seven is a new chapter, as it's clearly a continuing of the story from chapter six. Nonetheless, we pick right up with Stephen answering the accusation of blasphemy. He for some reason decides to respond by summarizing the Old Testament. Now, I've said this before in the blog, because it's come up: Stephen makes a few factual errors in his speech here, and I consider them errors by Stephen rather than Biblical contradictions, so I'm not likely to answer cases of claimed contradiction based on this speech. (I will ask the SAB to link to this explanation, however.)

Stephen starts with Abraham, and gets some timing matters wrong in his life, but the gist of the story is correct. He also rounds off the length of the Egyptian captivity, although God did the same thing in Genesis 15, which Stephen is referring to. (I also answered that issue in Genesis chapter 15.) After Abraham, he moves quickly to Joseph to tell the story of how the first generation Israelites came to be in Egypt. Somehow Stephen counts Jacob's family wrong (which I actually addressed in Genesis chapter 45-46) and gets some burial details off. Then he moves on to Moses, a man he calls "mighty in words" completely at odds with the impression you get of him in Exodus, although that's mainly Moses's impression of himself, and he does manage a few good speeches here and there in his story. The SAB takes issue with the description of who appeared in the burning bush, which oddly enough I didn't discuss in Exodus three, but in Mark twelve, where I explained it's a technicality. Stephen recalls the incident of the golden calf. He jumps from there to David and Solomon, and mentions the latter built the Temple, but the SAB asks a question here that is dependent on more than just Stephen, so I'll address it: Does God dwell in Temples? I would say the answer is "no", actually, and I'm appealing to the words of the verses on that page. The verses claimed for "yes" do call the Temple a "house", but neither actually says God dwells there. 2Chronicles seven says that God's name would be there, which is fine enough, but when it says his eyes and heart will be there, I think the sentiment is that God will watch over it rather than actually be contained by it, as Stephen quotes Isaiah 66 in verses 49-50.

As he finishes his speech, "Stephen blames the Jews for persecuting the prophets and murdering Jesus." (As the SAB puts it...) It sounds antisemitic, but it's true, and as I said in a previous chapter, when addressing the Sanhedrin, it's essentially true about Jesus as well. Anyway, this infuriates his audience, and he has a vision of Jesus in Heaven just before they grab him and take him outside to stone him to death. As they stone him, Stephen prays for them and falls asleep.

Then shall the lame man leap as an hart (Acts 3)

Well, Acts chapter three has no contradictions listed, so this should be easier than the last two. The chapter opens with Peter and John meeting a lame man begging at the gate of Jerusalem. Peter decides to perform a miracle and heal the man's legs. The man goes with them to the Temple, where they draw a crowd because people recognize the formerly lame man. Peter tells the crowd they shouldn't be amazed, because he healed the man by the power of the Son of God. Peter tells the crowd that they were responsible for turning Jesus over to Pilate (which is a bit harsh, and perhaps presumptuous) but at least they did it out of ignorance. He tells them that all of it was foretold by the prophets, and they should repent and be converted into Christians (actually the word "Christian" hasn't been coined yet, that happens in chapter eleven). Peter reminds them of the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18, identifying Jesus as that prophet, and saying those who do not listen to him will be destroyed. The SAB marks this as intolerant, unjust, and violent, but I really don't think Peter is calling for anyone to be killed, but rather pointing out that Jesus is the only way to salvation. (So count this as a verse against the idea of universal salvation, I guess.) The SAB seems confused about verse 24, but I think Peter is just saying that all of the prophets have at some time spoken about the Messiah, which may not be strictly true, but it's largely correct.

He was received up into heaven (Acts 1)

So, back to the New Testament, and Acts chapter one. Some people believe that Luke's gospel and the book of Acts were actually intended as documentary evidence for the trial of Paul, the former being an overview of Christianity and the latter the story of Paul and his role in the church. There are a lot of supposed contradictions here that are pretty easy to deal with. Right off the top, Does the gospel of Luke contain everything that Jesus did? No, of course not, and I think it's silly to imply Luke is making such a claim. What is most likely is that Luke is saying he included everything important that Jesus did, or even quite possibly the "all" represents the opposite Venn diagram of what the SAB implies, i.e. that all of Luke's gospel contains things Jesus did (which is not strictly true either, but we're just taking "all" too seriously here).

I answered when Jesus ascended in John chapter 20; the answer is 40 days as described here, the only passage that gives a specific time frame. Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection? It's always been my understanding that Jesus told them to go to Galilee, where they would see him, and then back to Jerusalem, where they would see him again and he would ascend into Heaven. Sure, it can be confusing. Should the gospel be preached to everyone? Yes! There is some information missing on this page, I would say. While Jesus's ministry during his time on earth was generally limited to the Jews in Judea and Galilee, it's recorded that he went to the Samaritans in John 4, and the the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15 was ministered to. After Jesus was resurrected, he told his disciples to bring the Gospel to all people, so this apparent limiting of preaching to Jews only seems to have been for pre-resurrection times only. In addition to this, the passage from Acts 16 quoted is a bit odd, as Galatia is actually in Asia! Clearly Paul did preach in Asia, as he established several churches there, so whatever is going on in Acts 16:6 was temporary. (The seven churches written to in the first few chapters of Revelation are all in Asia, actually.) It's understood historically that the Apostles actually went pretty far with the Gospel just in the first century; some went to the area around the Black Sea, while others went to Parthia, which may have included parts of modern-day India. The Gospel also went pretty quickly to Ethiopia, perhaps by way of the eunuch mentioned in Acts chapter eight?

The "science" note on verse eleven I think can be outright dismissed as silly; just because someone somewhere had a weird interpretation of a Bible verse doesn't mean everyone has to care. (I assume that since it was brought up, it may have mattered to Galileo, but what happened to him is a whole can of worms outside of my scope here. I've read a lot about Galileo, and it's fascinating both what he accomplished as a scientist and what persecution he faced from the church because of it.)

What were the names of the Apostles? I actually addressed this in Matthew chapter ten, but I probably wasn't quite as thorough as I should have been. I honestly don't think there is such a thing as a "rank" of Apostles (although, yes, Peter is always listed first and Judas Iscariot is always last), so the real issue is discrepancy in the actual names. I think it's a safe assumption that Simon the Canaanite and Simon the Zealot are the same person; the hard one is whether Lebbaeus Thaddeus is the same person as Judas, brother of James. If you don't want a contradiction, you'd have to assume so; the Bible doesn't say they are, but it doesn't say they aren't, either. As I said in my previous comments, Lebbaeus Thaddeus seems to possibly be a nickname, so it's not out of the question. How many believers were there at the time of the ascension? I don't think this is a real problem. There's nothing in the text to indicate that these two verses are describing the same moment in time. I think the number given here in Acts is not the total number of believers, but the number that happened to be present when Peter was speaking. The "above five hundred" in 1Corinthians actually doesn't necessarily even mean believers; this could have happened in Galilee to a mixed group of believers and nonbelievers (the nonbelievers would mostly have not been aware that Jesus was resurrected, not having been witnesses of his death). It's really not specified. When was the Holy Ghost given? I know I've addressed this before, maybe several times, but I'll try and give a definitive answer here and make sure it's linked to on the page. As Jesus said earlier in this very chapter, there was a special event that happened on Pentecost when the believers were "baptized with the Holy Ghost". This is a special giving of the Holy Ghost that was for all believers in Jesus, and many theologians believe that from that day forward, the Holy Ghost was given to every believer from the time of their conversion. However, the Holy Ghost existed from eternity along with the other two persons of the Trinity, and there were special times and people before Pentecost that had the anointing of the Holy Ghost. The existence of these people is not a contradiction to the fact that the Holy Ghost was given on Pentecost; it's just that what happened on Pentecost was a major change in the role the Holy Ghost played in the Bible. Before Pentecost, even those mentions in the Old Testament of the "Spirit of God" are referring to the Holy Ghost.

Okay, on verse 18, there are three questions that are all intertwined, so I will answer them together: Who bought the potter's field? How did Judas die? What did Judas do with the silver? I actually addressed these in Matthew chapter 27, but let me reiterate here as a single narrative that puts this all together. Judas feels remorse for betraying Jesus, so he returns to the priests, and throws the silver down in front of them. He goes out and finds a field with a tree in it, and hangs himself on it. After his body hangs for some time, it somehow falls down and breaks open on the ground (and honestly, it doesn't make sense for a living human to burst open just from falling down; he would have to either fall from some height or have something wrong with him, like a partially decomposed body). The priests don't know what to do with the silver, because it's blood money, and they can't take it back, but they decide to buy the field Judas hanged himself in to serve as a cemetery; because the money was Judas's, in a sense he vicariously bought the field through the priests. The only thing not completely tied up by this narrative is why the field is called "the field of blood"; the answer is for both reasons given.

Okay, so the Psalms quoted by Peter were, in fact, written by David; I don't know why the SAB says they weren't. Yes, technically they weren't about Judas, but prophetically, scripture can have different shades of meaning, and I don't understand the basis for picking on Peter's choices like this.

Does God know and see everything? Yes, he does, and the verses being suggested to make a point against this are mostly misunderstood. Let me clear out a bunch of them by three statements: (1) Just because God asks a question doesn't mean he doesn't already know the answer, (2) the fact that people sometimes try to hide from God doesn't mean the attempt is in any way useful, and (3) when God tests someone it's so they will know themselves. In Genesis 11, the fact that God came down to see Babel doesn't imply he couldn't see it before, he's just putting in a more personal appearance for unknown reasons. Genesis 18:17 says nothing whatsoever about God not knowing something. In Genesis 18:20-21, God already knows about Sodom and Gomorrah, but for some reason feels it appropriate to have a face-to-face encounter with these people, so to speak (perhaps to call out comparatively righteous people like Lot?). I believe Hosea 8:4 is implying that God was in no way a part of the process of setting up these kings. Does God know what is in everyone's heart? I'm not sure why this is a separate question, but the answer is pretty much the same.

Does the Bible condemn gambling? This is a particularly interesting question for me on a personal level, because my degree is in mathematics, and my senior thesis was on gambling theory, with a particular focus on blackjack. I also at the end of my senior year took a class on the history of mathematics, and so for a project in that class, I did a report on the history of gambling. The simple answer to this question is "no" as the SAB itself admits, but it gets complicated because a lot of religious people have suggested that gambling is sinful, and have suggested verses in the Bible to support that idea. The thing I want to say about the history of gambling is that most forms of gambling have their roots in religious practices of divination. There certainly are places in the Bible where gambling is happening, but a lot of what the SAB implies to be gambling is just standard forms of divination. It simply was very common in many cultures, including the ancient Jewish world, to pray for the guidance of a god and then cast lots, or roll dice, or some such thing. So with all that being said, there's something to be said about items in both categories. Most of the verses on the "yes" side are about getting rich in general, which the Bible seems to be against. Proverbs 13:11 does seem particularly applicable to gambling, however, as it talks about "wealth gotten by vanity" (rather than hard work). 2Thessalonians 3:10 perhaps could be applied to gamblers, because most people don't consider gambling "work", but it's a controversial verse anyway. The Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus's robe are probably the clearest case of actual gambling in the Bible, and it's pretty clear it's not something to look up to. As for all the verses in the "no" section, those are just standard methods of divination, as I said above. So here in Acts, the lot falls on Matthias to be the new member of "the twelve", and we never hear him mentioned again.

They inclosed a great multitude of fishes (John 21)

So, as promised, a post on John chapter 21, even though like the first part of John eight, it's probably not part of the original. However, once again, there's a lot of interesting stuff to unpack here.

So the story tells us up front that this is another post-resurrection appearance of Jesus, this time by the sea of Tiberias/Galilee. Peter decides he's going fishing; apparently after everything that's happened, he's not sure what to do next, so he figures he's going back to his old job, I guess. A bunch of the other Apostles go with him. They go fishing at night, but catch nothing. A man appears on the shore and asks them if they have anything to eat; it's Jesus, but they don't recognize him.

I have a personal theory about this repeated business of Jesus not being initially recognized by people in post-resurrection appearances. I don't remember if I came up with this myself or if I heard it from someone else. One of the things we hear about Jesus post-resurrection, is that he still has the scars of his torture on his body. I already talked briefly about what that might imply in John 19, but there's another detail not mentioned there, or even in the New Testament in general. It's a bit of a reach, admittedly, but some people see Isaiah 50:6 as a prophecy of Jesus's torture before his crucifixion, and it reads, "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." If, in addition to the trauma actually described in the gospels, Jesus's beard was plucked out, he would have a scarred and hairless face on top of everything else. This would certainly make him hard to recognize for anyone used to seeing him with a beard. It's hard to say, though; one of the interesting things about Jesus in the Bible is there is absolutely no physical description of him anywhere at all (unless you count Revelation chapter one, which is probably not what Jesus usually looked like).

Anyway, when they tell Jesus they have no fish, he tells them to cast the net on the right side of the boat, which they do, and subsequently catch so many fish they can't lift the net back in the boat, a call back to the story from Luke chapter five. I've sometimes wondered if this story was meant to be an allegory to the idea of the Gospel going from the Jews to the gentiles, but that's pure speculation. John realizes that the man is Jesus, and says so. Peter, who for some reason was fishing at night naked, puts on his clothes and jumps in the water to swim to shore. The others drag the net to the shore where Jesus is apparently making breakfast for them. The story specifies that they caught 153 fish, which is interesting because it's not a number that has significance, nor is it rounded. It seems that whoever wrote this wanted to show that there was a lot of fish, and that they weren't being hyperbolic about it.

Verses 15-17 are very interesting, but something is lost in translation. As the SAB notes, it sounds like Jesus is asking the same question three times, but it's a shortcoming of the English language, that doesn't have as many words for "love" as Greek. It's been said by many that since Peter denied Jesus three times, Jesus asks Peter three times to restore him, which may be true. But the real significance is in the specific words used in the Greek. It's sort of like this:

Jesus: Do you love me more than anyone?

Peter: You know I like you.

J: Do you love me?

P: You know I like you.

J: Do you like me?

P: [grieved to notice the change of verbs] You know all things; you know I like you.

Note once again that just because Jesus is asking a question, it doesn't mean he didn't know the answer; he's trying to draw something out of Peter here, and perhaps teach Peter something.

Jesus says some cryptic things to Peter that apparently are prophetic of the way Peter would die. History says that Peter was crucified, however he requested to be crucified upside down because he wasn't worthy of dying the same death as Jesus. Because of this, an upside-down cross is sometimes considered a symbol of the Apostle Peter. Peter asks about John, and Jesus says, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" Which some people, including apparently the SAB, take to mean that John would live until the second coming, but I think Jesus is just saying, "that's none of your business." (Verse 23 seems to be confirming this.) Nonetheless, John did see the second coming in a vision in writing the book of Revelation.

The chapter and the book end with the claim that all the things that Jesus did probably couldn't be contained in all the books of the world. If we're talking about what Jesus did in his thirty-odd years on earth alone, this is clearly hyperbole. As for the SAB's question of Does the gospel of Luke contain everything that Jesus did? I think the SAB is taking the word "all" in Acts 1:1 too literally. I'm pretty sure Luke just meant "all the things that I thought were important enough to include..."

He appeared first to Mary Magdalene (John 20)

John chapter 20 picks up the story on the following Sunday. There are definitely a lot of aspects of the story of Jesus's resurrection that are hard to follow among the four gospels, but at some point in the past, I made this rather difficult to read page about it: Resurrection harmony. As I allude to there, I believe that Mary Magdalene was the first of several women to arrive, perhaps even alone. So, let's knock out some supposed contradictions...

When did the women (or woman) arrive at the sepulchre? Mary Magdalene arrived before sunrise; some other women arrived shortly after. How many women came to the sepulchre? At least five, and I believe they came in at least two separate groups. The fact that some of the gospels fail to mention every single woman who came doesn't mean they weren't there. Was the tomb open or closed when the women arrived? It was open. The original Greek in Matthew supports the possible translation "had opened" suggesting he didn't put these verses in strict chronological order. When did the women discover that Jesus's body was missing? The answer is before talking to the angel(s). It doesn't seem like Mary Magdalene talked to an angel at all, actually. Matthew once again is missing some details as to chronological order, as he never mentions the women checking out the tomb. In Mark, they are already in the tomb, so they likely saw the body was missing before the angel actually spoke. Well, that's verse one, let's see what the rest of the chapter has for us.

Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection? Yes, he did, but they were still confused and a bit hesitant to believe, even after all they had seen Jesus do. Oh, and just a side note about verse eight, I always wonder what exactly it is that John "believed" if the very next verse says they didn't understand the resurrection yet.

Were the men or angels inside or outside the tomb when the when the women arrived? I'm sticking to the idea that the angel rolled away the stone before anyone got to the tomb, so Matthew is once again talking about something that happened when only the soldiers were present. Whom did the women see at the tomb? Yes, there's a contradiction here, but not necessarily as convoluted as the SAB implies. Once again, the verse from Matthew is talking about an event that happened before the women arrived. As for the rest of it, there seems to be some confusion about whether there were two or one, but whether it was angels or men, I think we're dealing with angels that happen to look like men, so they are described variously. Most likely the correct answer is two angels, one of whom spoke. Were the men or angels inside the tomb sitting or standing? Really? They probably changed position at some point.

To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance? Definitely Mary Magdalene; none of the other verses besides the one in Mark mention chronological order. Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus when he first appeared to her? No, not immediately. The event in Matthew happened later, and it's not particularly clear whether Mary Magdalene was even there. The story in Luke is a second-hand account that is unclear as to when it was heard about or what details were heard. Was Mary Magdalene happy or sad when she saw the risen Jesus? Sad. Once again, these are two separate events. Was it okay to touch the risen Jesus? Apparently it was. The explanation I have been told about this admonition Jesus gives Mary Magdalene is that she probably wasn't just touching him but clinging to him tightly and Jesus was trying to tell her she couldn't keep him. I'm not sure, but other translations do say, "Do not hold on to me..." I already answered the question of who God's children are and if Jesus is God in John chapter one. Did Jesus go to heaven after he died but before his ascension? Yes, this is an apparent contradiction, and one that I noticed myself. I am of the opinion that in the time between Jesus's death and resurrection, he was in Hell, but of course it may be that he went to Hell, set people there loose, and took them to Heaven. I think the thing you can definitely say is that Jesus has not ascended to Heaven for the final time, which would happen in about forty days.

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection? There is no contradiction here. Once again there is a time issue with Matthew: nowhere in the Matthew passage does it say that was Jesus's first appearance. Were the disciples frightened or glad when they saw Jesus? Frightened initially, but once Jesus reassured them, they were glad. So both. I already answered when the Holy Ghost was given in John chapter seven, but verse 23 is an interesting one, because it sounds like Jesus is giving them the Holy Ghost right now rather than at Pentecost. A bit strange. How many disciples did Jesus appear to in his first post resurrection appearance? I know I addressed this some time previously, but because there were originally twelve Apostles, they are sometimes referred to as "the twelve" even after Judas was gone, and since Judas was gone, sometimes referred to as "the eleven". It's imprecise because they're not always together, and eventually there are more people referred to as "Apostles" (including Junia, a woman, if I am remembering correctly), but this convention is there anyway. The correct answer is ten Apostles, but there may actually have been other, lesser disciples present as well.

When did Jesus ascend into Heaven? The correct answer is 40 days after his resurrection. The verses given in the "on the day" section are not specific about how much time had passed. The other verses do not contradict 40 days. Should we believe in unseen things? Sometimes. The SAB says the second half of verse 29 is equivalent to "Blessed are they that believe stupid things without (or even contrary to) evidence." This is not what it means at all. There are more kinds of evidence than seeing something, a lot more. Right now, I can't see the chair I am sitting on, but I believe it exists, and I believe it will continue to support my weight without collapse. I have never seen Jesus with my eyes, but I have read about him in the Bible, and I have researched the evidence for the accuracy of the Bible to the original manuscripts, and I have witnessed things that make me think the God of the Bible is real. That's enough evidence for me to believe, it certainly is not enough for some people. Note that the Bible never condemns Thomas for doubting; it's not a sin to want more evidence. I already answered whether Jesus performed many signs in John chapter three.

As the SAB notes, this chapter ends in a way that sound like the end of the book, and it's likely chapter 21 is a later addition, but I will do a post on it, of course.

And they crucified him (John 19)

John chapter 19 opens with Jesus being scourged. The SAB says Jesus gets "whipped", but no, scourged isn't just the archaic term for whipped; it means something quite different. A whip is a thin strip of leather that mostly leaves burn marks on the back. A scourge is a thick strip of leather embedded with things like sharp rocks, pieces of broken glass, and metal spikes that would tear open the back. I've always thought it was strange that when people talk about Jesus's wounds, they tend to mention the four nail holes and spear hole in his side, but forget his back was most likely shredded. It's morbid, but I think it's important to understand fully the extent of the torture Jesus went through in his final hours.

Who put the robe on Jesus? and What color was Jesus's robe? All four gospels mention the robe, but apparently the details vary. On a technicality, it's likely that in Luke's telling of the story, when it says Herod did it, it's really probably meaning Herod supplied the robe and soldiers (probably Romans) actually put it on, but as I said in the last chapter, it's still very strange that only Luke mentions the visit to Herod. The robe was probably purple, as that would have been a royal color, but I have no idea why Matthew says scarlet.

So then there is some back and forth between Pilate and the Sanhedrin, wherein Pilate keeps saying he doesn't understand what Jesus is guilty of, and finally, the Jews tell him that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, which is blasphemy. Pilate goes back to Jesus and asks him why he's not defending himself, as Pilate definitely has the authority to put him to death. Jesus says Pilate's authority comes from God, and therefore those who betrayed him have a greater sin. Pilate presents Jesus as the king, but the Jews say, "We have no king but Ceasar!" So finally, Pilate has him taken away to be crucified.

When (at what time of day) was Jesus crucified? This is a weird one that I don't personally know the answer to, but what I have heard it said about this discrepancy is that there are actually two different methods of measuring time, the Jewish one and the Roman one. Supposedly Mark is using the Roman method while the other gospels use the Jewish method. I already answered what day Jesus was crucified in the last chapter.

Who carried Jesus's cross? Yes, there's a detail of the crucifixion that John fails to mention: the role of Simon the Cyrenian. There is no contradiction here; Jesus carried his cross part of the way, but after being scourged, he didn't have the strength to make it all the way, so the Romans grabbed a random guy from the crowd and made him help. I find it interesting that this is one of a few places in the Bible with what I suppose you'd call representation; Jesus was a Semite, Simon was a Hamite, and the Roman soldier with them would have been a Japhethite. What did the sign over Jesus's head say? Yes, all four of the gospels have a different sign, but they are very close. There is an interesting significance to the sign here in John, however. John says the sign was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; in Hebrew, "JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS" would be four words, with the initial letters spelling "יהוה" which in the Hebrew Bible is the name of God. The chief priests in verse 21 are not just upset because they don't recognize Jesus as king, but because the sign is accidentally blasphemous.

Where did the women watching the crucifixion stand? I think this supposed contradiction is taking the words too literally. When the OT gospels say "afar off", I don't think it means they are very far away, as obviously they are within view of the cross. Furthermore, it may be that there were more women than the ones John specifies, and those specific four were close enough to the cross to talk to Jesus; certainly his mother was. I briefly discussed the idea of Jesus being gay in chapter 13.

What did the soldiers give Jesus to drink? and Did Jesus drink on the cross? Notice that Mark says two different drinks at two different times, and Jesus refuses the first, and the first was wine, which Jesus said he wouldn't drink again in this world at the last supper. Furthermore, while John says Jesus "received" the vinegar, it doesn't technically say he drank it; he may have simply tasted it. So, in summary, I would say Jesus was given both wine and vinegar, it's unclear what the makeup of the vinegar was, and while Jesus definitely did not drink the wine, he may have had a small sip of the vinegar.

What were the last words of Jesus? Yeah, everyone who has read the gospels knows this is an unclear point. I think it can be reasonably resolved, however. The witnesses of the crucifixion were standing in different places, so it makes sense that they heard different things. Note that Matthew says that Jesus cried out again, so he is not claiming that the quote he gave was Jesus's last saying; I would assume when he cried out, he said what Luke quotes. I would assume that John's "It is finished." was the actual last saying, but since it was quiet, only the people standing at the foot of the cross heard it.

Verse 36 says it's a fulfillment of scripture that none of Jesus's bones were broken. As I mentioned previously, Jesus is serving as the ultimate Passover lamb, and scripture says in Exodus 12:46 of the Passover lamb, "...neither shall ye break a bone thereof." The SAB argues that this is not a prophecy, but I think it's a matter of opinion, and Christians disagree.

The chapter ends up with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, two members of the Sanhedrin who were secretly disciples of Jesus, preparing Jesus's body for burial and putting it in a nearby sepulcher.

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests (John 18)

John chapter 18 tells the story of Jesus's betrayal, capture, and some of what followed. Did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss? I would say yes, he did, but John failed to mention that detail. So Jesus does identify himself, and as soon as he says, "I am he," the soldiers fall over, perhaps implying some sort of power to Jesus's voice. Peter draws a sword and strikes a servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. It's neen suggested that this indicates Peter went for the easiest target and hit him while he was walking away. Jesus rebukes Peter, and the soldiers take Jesus away.

Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first? There is something tricky going on here because of the nature of the relationship between these two priests. It's actually known somehow historically that Annas was the high priest, but Rome wasn't happy with him for some reason, so they forced the Jews to choose a new high priest, who was Caiaphas. However, a lot of the Jews still thought of Annas as the high priest, and he still had some authority. (This also explains the oddity in verse 19 of Annas being called the high priest: there were sort of two. See Luke 3:2) So when the gospels say Jesus was taken to the high priest without specification, it could be either man. Matthew does indeed specify Caiaphas, but none of the gospels besides John's mentions stopping by Annas at all; as John was the one Apostle who followed Jesus closely that night, it makes sense that John would have more details. What is a more interesting discrepancy is the fact that only one gospel mentions visiting Herod, and it's not John.

There are a lot of oddities to Jesus's trial that are actually illegal. Trials can't be at night; the accused cannot be made to testify against himself; in a capital trial, two witnesses are needed; and just as a cherry on top from the other gospels, the high priest is not allowed to tear his clothes. To whom did Peter deny knowing Jesus? Yeah, there's no real way to get around this one; the gospels are very mixed up on the details of this aspect of the story, and I have no idea why.

Did Jesus have secret teachings? I think it's fairly straightforward to reconcile these verses. While Jesus explained the parables to his disciples, the parables themselves were not secret, and while Jesus kept his full identity a secret at the beginning of his ministry, he eventually went very public about it. As for the transfiguration, yesn that was secret, but there were no teachings involved. In short, everything Jesus had to say about himself he eventually said in public, and even in front of the Pharisees.

When (on what day) was Jesus crucified? This is an easy one, if you know Jewish custom. As I mentioned in another post, Passover is seven days long. What I didn't mention, but probably should have, is that there is a feast on both the first and second night. So the Passover meal talked about in John is the second one. The SAB makes note of the fact that Jesus here has a fairly detailed conversation with Pilate, although Matthew says Jesus said virtually nothing. It is interesting, and I wonder why it's not simply marked as a contradiction, since it's arguably so. Oh, it is, and I somehow missed it. Well, I don't have an answer anyway. Pilate asks Jesus, "What is truth?" which, as the SAB notes, is a good question, but it's probably noted for its irony, because Jesus said, "I am the truth..." Pilate offers to set free a prisoner, as is apparently the custom on Passover. He thinks the crowd will choose Jesus, but they choose Barabbas. ("Barabbas" is Aramaic for "son of the father" which some people have suggested may be meaningful. )

Ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (John 17)

John chapter 17 has Jesus closing his speech with a prayer. There is a lot of stuff marked as absurd in this chapter that, as is so often the case, I don't understand. I answered how many gods there are in John chapter ten. Verse 12 has Jesus say that Judas is a fulfillment of scripture, and the Christian consensus seems to be that he's referring to Psalm 41:9-10

Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. But thou, O LORD, be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that I may requite them.

In verse 21, Jesus prays that all that believe in him should be one, which the SAB makes fun of, and there certainly is basis for it, but I think it may be a bit overblown. Yes, there are probably thousands of Christian denominations in the world today, but that doesn't necessarily mean such radical division as some might think. A lot of denominations are different like flavors of ice cream; just because I'm a Baptist and that guy over there is a Lutheran doesn't mean we don't basically agree on most things; denominations are largely about what sort of worship style you like, and how you feel about church hierarchies, rather than being about essential doctrines of the faith. I mean, sometimes I'm struck by how much I have in common theologically with a Muslim, much less someone simply of a different denomination. I have brothers in Christ who are Orthodox, Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. and I don't see them as essentially different from me. Yes, there are conflicts between Christians and even conflicts between churches, but in the end, most of us recognize that Christians are Christians, and if we're called to show God's love for the world, that certainly includes other Christians.

Thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter (John 16)

John chapter 16 and Jesus is still talking. He talks about the upcoming persecution of Christians, which of course in the first several centuries of Christianity was a major thing. Actually, Christians are persecuted up until this day, although American Christians tend to have a twisted idea of what persecution means. (People got angry at me because I wouldn't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding! I'm so persecuted!)

Anyway, I already answered the question of whether the Apostles asked where Jesus was going in chapter 13. I answered the question of who sent the Holy Ghost in chapter 14. I answered who the lord of the earth is in chapter 12. I answered whether Jesus told his disciples everything in chapter 15.

Apparently, although the Apostles aren't asking where Jesus is going, they are still confused. Jesus senses their confusion and tells them that while they will be sad at first, their sadness will turn to joy; he takes a metaphor of a woman in childbirth, who has to go through pain on the way to joy. I addressed the issue of blank check prayers in chapter 14.

Jesus says that while he has talked a lot in metaphor, he is going to speak plainly; the Apostles essentially thank him and say that they understand, and know that Jesus knows everything. Did Jesus know everything? It's an interesting question, because Jesus is supposedly God, and God is supposedly omniscient, but was Jesus? Interestingly, the answer is no, but there is definitely some need for clarification. First, the verse from Mark 13 is Jesus admitting that there is something he doesn't know, although it's not explained why. It's important to note that while Jesus is admitting not knowing when the end of the world will be, that certainly doesn't mean he'll never know. It's assumed by most Christians that there was some limit imposed on Jesus's omniscience while he was on earth for some reason, but he was omniscient once he ascended, if not immediately after his resurrection. So two of the verses in the yes section are people saying that Jesus knew everything, but they may have been wrong. The third one was written by Paul after Jesus's ascension. In the no section, the fact that Jesus asked a question doesn't mean he didn't already know the answer (I touched on this in addressing God's omniscience in Genesis three), and the fact that he "marvelled" doesn't mean he was surprised, so while Jesus was not omniscient, it doesn't mean he didn't know these things.

He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law (John 15)

John chapter 15 opens with Jesus's "I am the vine" speech. This is a very popular one among Christians, at least in my experience. He uses the metaphor of being a vine and believers being branches, and if they stay connected, they will bear fruit. Jesus also talks about branches that are not connected being removed and burned up, which the SAB chooses to take much more literally than I think it was intended; it's a metaphor. Jesus also repeats what he said before about prayers being answered, which I addressed in the last chapter. Jesus commands his disciples to love each other, which the SAB makes an insightful comment on: if Jesus is saying love everyone, this is great, but so many people take it to mean only love Christians who are like you, which is sad indeed.

Did Jesus tell his disciples everything? Yeah, on the face of it, with these verses coming in this order, it sounds like a contradiction. I think the likely resolution is that when Jesus says here in chapter 15 that he told them "all things that I have heard of my Father" he means that he's told them everything they need to know at this time; I mean, it doesn't actually say "everything". I think there are things that they are only going to fully understand after Jesus is resurrected.

In verse 23, Jesus says, "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." The SAB rightly interprets this to mean if you hate Jesus, you therefore hate God, and calls it intolerant, noting that Luther used this verse as an excuse for antisemitism. I think this is unfortunate, and it's not meant to be that way. I don't think Jesus is saying you can't love God without loving Jesus, but rather that those who fully understand who Jesus was and hate him for it are hating God. Yeah, it's a fine line, but I nonetheless feel it's important.

I already addressed who sent the Holy Ghost in the last chapter.

Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven (John 14)

John chapter 14 continues Jesus's parting message to the Apostles. He talks a lot about Heaven and the Holy Ghost. Speaking of Heaven, When was heaven created? The verses on this page are talking about different things. "In the beginning" and "when the earth was created" are the same time. As I'm pretty sure I mentioned in Genesis somewhere, the Jews believed in three "heavens": the atmosphere, outer space, and the dwelling place of God (in 2Corinthians 12:2 Paul talks about being "caught up to the third heaven"). Now here in John 14, Jesus is not talking about creating Heaven, but essentially preparing it for guests in some way. Theologically, up until now, nobody has been in Heaven but God and his angels.

I just talked about the disciples asking where Jesus was going in the previous chapter. The SAB marks Jesus's claim to be the only way to Heaven as intolerant, and while I suppose it may be, if it's the truth, it's the truth. Now of course there are Christians who believe in universal salvation, and they would say everyone gets to Heaven because Jesus died for the sin of the world, which is certainly possible, but seems unlikely given other things Jesus says. Jesus says, "if you have seen me you have seen the Father," prompting the SAB to ask, "Can God be seen?" (which I answered in John chapter one) and "Is Jesus God?" (which I answered in another post in John one).

Jesus says, "whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do." This the SAB calls, "The greatest lie ever told." Now I understand why someone would think that, because on the straightforward fully literal sense, it's not true. Once again, I don't think it's saying what the SAB thinks it's saying. The phrase "in my name" doesn't mean, "If you tack the name Jesus onto the end of any prayer, your wish will be magically granted." Rather, as I've discussed before, a person's "name" is like their reputation, and in Jesus's case--and here in this verse--it means the essence of who Jesus is. The point here, and I know skeptics are going to call it a cop-out, is that if you ask for something that aligns with God's will, you will see your prayer answered.

Will Jesus's second coming be visible to all? I don't think this is really a contradiction. Once again, this is a matter of taking "no more" to be a more absolute statement than Jesus is meaning it to be. I think it suffices to say that nobody living at the time Jesus spoke those words would see Jesus again on earth after his ascension. Who sent the Holy Ghost? Again, not a contradiction; both Jesus and the Father sent him.

Is Jesus peaceful? I'm sure I covered this somewhere in one of the other gospels, but yes, these verses can be confusing. Let me clear up a handful that don't really belong here. The Matthew 26 and Luke 22 passages are not about peace or war, but are simply about self-defense; in the Luke passage, Jesus suggests the Apostles should arm themselves, because they will likely find themselves in danger after Jesus is gone, and in Matthew, Jesus is just telling Peter to let things unfold as peacefully as possible rather than starting a fight he can't win. As for the rest, the peace that Jesus brought to earth was peace between man and God by taking away the sin of the world. However people who accept this peace will often find themselves in struggle against those who do not accept it. And of course, in the Revelation passage, there is a literal war, with Jesus as the commander-in-chief of one side.

"Is Jesus God?" and "Who is the Lord of the earth?" are questions I answered in John chapter one and John chapter 12 respectively.

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings (John 13)

John chapter 13 opens with Jesus washing the Apostles' feet. This is a very touching scene, because this task would usually be done by a servant, so Jesus, now apparently on the day before his death, shows himself to be a servant of his disciples, which is generally a radical reversal of tradition. The SAB marks this as absurd, along with a few other things in the chapter, but I'm not sure why this one. If it's supposedly absurd for Jesus to do such a menial task, then it's right on target and gets the point. If it's absurd that Jesus strips down before doing it, I don't see why; he probably wanted to keep his clothes clean. Anyway, when he gets to Peter, they have an exchange of words in which Peter refuses to have his feet washed, Jesus tells him that it's necessary, Peter says Jesus should wash his hands and face, and Jesus says after bathing only feet need to be washed. I have heard a lot of Christians look for deeper meaning in this exchange, but I think Jesus is just plain talking about dirt; if you take a bath in the river and then walk back to the house, really only your feet are going to be dirty. (Okay, there is a touch of deeper meaning that John explains in verse 11, the implication that Judas is not clean because he was planning to betray Jesus.) Jesus puts his clothes back on and talks to the Apostles about what he did, explaining that as he acted like a servant to them, so they should act as servants to the other believers in the future. There are actually churches who take this literally and practice feet washing. I believe the Pope actually washes the feet of twelve people just before Easter every year; recently there was a story about Pope Francis choosing to wash the feet of twelve Muslim refugees as a gesture of interfaith goodwill and a heart for refugees. I'm not a Catholic, but I really like Pope Francis.

So then apparently John skips forward a bit towards the end of the Passover meal (it's easier to tell from context in the other gospels when this happens) and Jesus is talking about his betrayal. He speaks of Psalm 41:9 as prophecy, and the SAB brings up a couple points about the context of that Psalm. Jesus of course hasn't sinned against God the Father, so if the whole psalm is supposed to be prophetic, perhaps verse four speaks about Peter? As for having an "evil disease" people were just saying of Jesus that he was demon possessed, so that could certainly fit.

The SAB makes some allusion to John and Jesus being so close as a possibility once again for Jesus being gay. John is lying against Jesus's chest for a while here, and as I said back in 1Samuel where I was talking about David and Jonathan, it's not uncommon in other cultures for two heterosexual men who are good friends to be affectionate towards each other. I find it funny that America, where we're tolerant enough of homosexuality that we legalized same-sex marriage (as we should--it's not the government's job to say who we can marry or what consenting adults do in their own homes), is so homophobic that we see two men hugging and assume they are gay. Virtually everywhere else, men are affectionate.

When did Satan enter Judas? the SAB asks as Jesus reveals to John who the betrayer is. This is not a contradiction if you can accept that Satan enters into Judas more than once. Satan enters into Judas in Luke 22 when Judas decides to see what he can get for betrayal of Jesus, and enters into Judas again when he actually goes to commit the act. I really wanted to follow up with the discussion from a few posts ago about Jesus supposedly committing suicide. One should note that while the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus, they didn't want to do it at Passover. Matthew 26:3-5

Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

So Jesus knows they don't want to get him during Passover, but in this passage, we see him force the matter: right after talking about being betrayed, he hands food to Judas, saying, "That thou doest, do quickly." Jesus is telling Judas, I know you're going to betray me; do it now. Jesus wants to be betrayed and killed during Passover (which lasts for seven days) for a few reasons. First, he wants to fulfill prophecy and become the ultimate Passover lamb, or as John the Baptist put it in John 1:29, "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Secondly, and related, Jesus wants to be killed by the Romans, so he will be crucified, as this fulfills scripture again (and his own prophecies about his death), and as the Passover lamb, his bones are not broken (if the Jews killed him, they would have stoned him to death, which certainly would have broken bones)(see also John 19:33). Why does dying during Passover mean that the Romans kill him? John 18:31-32

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

Some have incorrectly assumed this meant that the Jews weren't allowed to put someone to death under Roman law, but note that they already tried to kill Jesus several times, and did kill Stephen in the Book of Acts. No, what's not lawful is touching a dead body during Passover (see Numbers 6:9). In the end, Jesus is carefully controlling the manner and timing of his death.

The SAB marks verse 35 as absurd, and you have to admit that historically, "love" hasn't been the hallmark of self-professed "Christians." Perhaps it's a sign that they weren't? There certainly are a lot of present-day "Christians" I question.

Did any of the apostles ask Jesus where he was going? Yes, but apparently by chapter 16, they had stopped asking. Did Jesus say before the cock crow or before the cock crows twice? I guess this is a genuine contradiction, but what difference does it really make? I mean the cock has to crow if it's going to crow twice.

And they brought the colt to Jesus (John 12)

Okay, John chapter twelve opens with Jesus being anointed by Mary. The SAB compares this story with one in the other gospels, but I think if you look at the details, it's two different anointings. In this story, we're told the anointer is Mary, while in the other, it's a nameless woman who is a "sinner" (I think it may be implied that she is a prostitute). In this story, Jesus is at the house of Lazarus, while in the other he is at the house of Simon "the leper" (probably a former leper that Jesus healed). In this story, it's six days before Passover, while in the other, it's two days before. In this story, there's no mention of what sort of vessel Mary had the ointment in, while in the other, they specify an alabaster box.

Is it OK to use perfume? Wow, a lot of the SAB's supposed contradictions are insightful, but this is a reach. The answer is yes, it is okay. The Exodus 30 verse is crystal clear in context that it's talking about a specific perfume; the one described in the previous two verses is specified to be for ceremonial use only, and not personal use. The Proverbs 7 passage is saying that prostitutes use perfume, but doesn't in any way say only prostitutes use it. I don't know entirely what the point of the Isaiah verses is, but they certainly don't say not to use perfume. This really is a non-issue.

Anyway, Judas complains that the perfume was worth about a year's worth of wages, and it could have been sold to help the poor. The Bible notes that Judas didn't really care about the poor, but rather was in charge of holding the money bag for the group, and often stole from it for himself. Jesus says an interesting thing here, "the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always." It dounds a bit calloused, and indeed it's sort of strange that Jesus, who often taught about helping the poor, would say it, but keep in mind, Jesus has about a week to live. This is actually a rather unfortunate verse in the Bible that I have actually heard "Christians" quote to justify not helping the poor.

So the next day, Jesus rides into Jerusalem, but the SAB asks, On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? This seems like a contradiction, but it's just that the different gospel writers used different words for the same thing. Jesus rode on the colt of an ass. Saying he rode on a colt or an ass essentially means the same thing, and saying that he rode on both is just saying the colt's mother was there; obviously he didn't ride on two things at once. The SAB also questions whether this truly fulfilled the prophecy quoted in verse 15. While he fulfilled that specific verse, the SAB claims, "But this can't be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom." Let's see those verses:

9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. Be glad and shout, people of Jerusalem, because your king comes to you, humble and riding on a young donkey.
10 And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
12 Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee;
13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.

I think I don't see the military thing, as verse 10 talks about peace; nonetheless, there is a concept that is pretty consistent in the New Testament of "spiritual warfare" which is to say that there is always a battle going on in the spiritual realm between good and bad (actually, there are elements of this concept in the Old Testament, too). It's also known that it's symbolic that when a military leader rides into a city on a stallion, he's coming for war, but when he rides on a colt, he's coming in peace. As for an earthly kingdom, the book of Revelation says some things similar to this, implying that at Jesus's second coming, he will have a kingdom on earth.

After riding into Jerusalem, Jesus makes a speech. In the speech, he says something about seeds "dying" that the SAB takes issue with. I vaguely recall addressing this somewhere before, but I have no idea where that would have been. Yes, technically seeds don't "die", but they have the appearance of not being alive and need to be buried in the ground to grow (most of them, anyway) so speaking metaphorically, I think this makes sense. In verse 27, Jesus says something that prompts the SAB to ask, Did Jesus ask God to save him from crucifixion? I'd have to say at most, this is another instance of Jesus lying, which is not a contradiction, but it's probably worth examining the other verses where Jesus seems to contradict himself. Yes, Jesus says, "if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," but Jesus knows it's not possible to avoid crucifixion and fulfill God's will, so he follows with, "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Although Jesus went willingly to the cross, it's understandable that he wasn't enthusiastic about it. Then something interesting happens; God the Father speaks out of the sky again, like he did at Jesus's baptism.

Jesus, in talking about his crucifixion, mentions that "now shall the prince of this world be cast out." This prompts the SAB to ask Who is the Lord of this world? Interestingly enough, I really covered this at the end of my post on Ruth chapter four, where I said God is the original owner of the earth, but gave it to Adam, who essentially sold it to Satan for a piece of fruit. My link to Revelation five there implies that there is a trust deed that Jesus will redeem from whoever currently owns it, which is likely Satan, since he essentially offered the world to Jesus as a temptation. So the answer is that Satan has it temporarily in his possession, but it ultimately belongs to God.

I answered the question of whether Jesus performed many signs in John chapter three. Does God want some to go to hell? and Who forces non-believers to disbelieve? are both closely related questions and have a lot of proof texts in common. It seems pretty evident that there seems to be contradiction in the first question, but the second one can be very easily dismissed: some people are influenced by Satan to disbelieve, but for many people who disbelieve, God solidifies their disbelief. It's a lot like what was said about the hardening of Pharaoh's heart; if you're stubborn, sometimes God entrenches your stubbornness. And really, for those verses shared by both pages, that's the explanation; but what about the others? Well, the Proverbs verse is just stating a fact: God made all people, both good and bad, and in ways we don't always fully understand, bad people have a purpose, too. The 2Thessalonians verse in a larger context is largely saying all of the things that were said in the above paragraph; Satan deceived them, they preferred the delusion, and so God reinforced it.

The chapter winds up with Jesus saying stuff about belief and judgment, with there being a side note about there being members of the Sanhedrin who believed, but were silent. I answered the question about whether Jesus judges people or not in John chapter five.