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.

And when he knew it of the centurion (Luke 7)

Luke 7 opens with the story of a centurion asking Jesus to heal his slave. The story here is told differently than it is in Matthew 8, prompting the SAB to ask "Did the centurion ask Jesus directly to heal his slave?" In Matthew's telling of the story, the centurion comes in person to talk to Jesus, while here, he sends some messengers. (Note that in neither version does Jesus go to the centurion's house.) While I couldn't say for sure, my guess on this matter is that Matthew left out details and simplified the story. Even though this transaction involved messengers, it's still essentially the centurion who's asking for help.

More important perhaps is the issue of slavery here. As the SAB rightly points out, if Jesus was against slavery, this would have been a good time to say something, but he doesn't. The SAB has a page on whether God approves of slavery, but I think there needs to be a distinction made between slavery in ancient Israel (which I addressed here) and slavery in Roman times. That being said, just as when I covered this story in Matthew 8, I have to admit that I know very little about Roman slavery and so I can't say much about it. Maybe if I ever get to the book of Philemon (which is about a runaway slave) I'll have to force myself to do some research.

Did Jesus know everything? While a case can be made that Jesus did not know everything, I think the fact that Jesus "marvelled" at the centurion is more of a statement of Jesus' emotional reaction than genuine surprise.

Next in the story, Jesus raises a man from the dead, prompting two questions from the SAB: Is death final? While I'm sure I've dealt with this before, let me do it here. In general, death is a final thing, but there are occasional exceptions of people who are revived from death, and that doesn't even require a miracle; sometimes a knowledge of CPR is enough. That being said, there is that matter of the concept of the resurrection of the dead, which is always supernatural. In this case in general everyone will resurrected at the end of time to be judged in a new, perfect body. When Jesus died on the cross, he was the first to be resurrected, which leads to and partially answers the second question, Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? The two verses in the yes column are referring to the resurrection, and not to people who were revived, nor to people whose spirits sent messages from beyond the grave.

In verse 19 we see "And John [the Baptist] calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?" The nature of this question is mostly a rhetorical one. John the Baptist already knows that Jesus is the Messiah, but he's confused about what Jesus is doing because like many other in that day, he expected the Messiah to revive the Israelite monarchy. Since Jesus seems to be just doing spiritual stuff, a lot of people are confused about his mission. (In other Gospel tellings of this event, John is in prison, and is confused as to why Jesus hasn't come to bust him out.)

In verse 28, the SAB asks, Who was the greatest prophet? Well, look at what those verses actually say: the Deuteronomy passage says there was never a prophet like Moses, not that Moses was the best. The verse in Hebrews says that Jesus was worthy of glory, but doesn't say that he was the greatest prophet (and really, even if it did, it would be fairly reasonable to assume that when Jesus praised John as the greatest, he was excluding himself from the comparison. So in short, John the Baptist was the greatest.

Were the Pharisees baptized by John? I don't think that the verse in Matthew 3 is saying what the SAB is claiming it's saying. When John said "I baptize you..." I believe he was speaking in general to the crowd, whether or not any one of them in particular were getting baptized, and the Pharisees were not.

The question Is it OK to use perfume? is, in my opinion, really one of the silliest that the SAB poses, and I'm not going to answer it again.

Is this not the carpenter? (Mark 6)

Mark 6 has a few interesting notes off the top that are of minor importance, but make for good discussion. Apparently verse 3 is the only verse in the Bible that says Jesus was a carpenter, but it may have been altered from the earliest manuscripts. Yes, I'd say that while Jesus is popularly thought of as a carpenter, it's entirely possible that that wasn't his profession; there certainly isn't any record of him actually doing any carpentry work.

The next note points out that Jesus had many siblings, and suggests that the Catholic belief that Mary was an eternal virgin can't be true because of this. I believe that the Catholics would suggest that these were half-siblings by an earlier marriage of Joseph.

In response to both questions on verse 5, I would like to say that the reason Jesus was unable to do great works in his hometown was simply that people weren't interested in asking him for help.

As for whether or not Jesus commanded his disciples to go without certain things, I addressed that in Matthew 10.

On verse 11, I don't think Jesus is talking about destruction of cities, but rather judgment. Of course, this judgment could include destruction, in which case the SAB would be right, I suppose.

The SAB notes that many people had odd ideas about who Jesus was, including Herod who thought he might be John the Baptist back from the dead, "even though John had just recently died and the people must have known what he looked like." While technically true, I think it's worth noting that Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins, and may have looked very similar to one another. Anyway, I addressed Herod mistaking Jesus for John the Baptist in Matthew 14. I also addressed whether there was ever a just person in Matthew 13.

His daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances (Matthew 14)

The first issue that the SAB brings up for Matthew 14 is an easy one to resolve, but it does also raise a thought-provoking question. Did Herod think that Jesus was John the Baptist? I don't think that Luke 9:9 is really saying no to this idea, but rather suggesting it in a weaker fashion. Herod hears what Jesus is up to, and apparently there was a lot of similarity between Jesus and John (perhaps even in physical appearance, as they were cousins), so he's thinking, "If I've killed John, then why does it sound like he's still around?" But the SAB is probably right in asking what all this confusion about the possibility of John returning from the dead says about the eventual resurrection of Jesus. (While it's worth asking, I'd point out that while Jesus came after John, there's no similar figure to confuse matters after Jesus' crucifixion, so--as the reader no doubt will do anyway--make of it what you will.)

Is dancing a sin? Good question. While I don't think you'll find a verse in the Bible that definitively says this is the case, but at least the first two verses quoted in the "Yes" column are worth bringing up when asking the question. I think it depends a lot on the type of dancing. I've actually been to a church service that incorporated dance into the worship, and while I found it strange (it's certainly not common) I wouldn't say it was wrong, but then it wasn't the sort of dancing that you'll see at certain bars, if you follow me. (Not literally, I've never been to one of those bars; not even before I was a Christian!) Anyway, I've heard it said that in both Exodus 32 and here, it's implied strongly that we're talking about dancing with a definite sexual tone to it; in this case, it's a young woman dancing seductively for her uncle/stepfather which has all sorts of other layers of yuck added onto it.

Since this chapter has such a small amount of material that the SAB brings up, I might as well discuss the story in verses 15-21 in which Jesus feeds a crowd of 5,000 (plus women and children) with a few loaves and fishes. While I said I would pretty much skip over discussing the supposed absurdity of miracles (as I am with verse 14 and the other miracles in this chapter), there's a couple interesting side notes that might be brought up here. One is that not only does he feed all these people, but the leftovers fill twelve (supposedly very large) baskets. A lot of people have pointed out that 12 tends to be a very significant number Biblically, and as such, there may be something symbolic going on here, such as this being symbolic of Jesus reaching the nation of Israel (12 tribes and all that).

The other thing that's an interesting thought--although I don't know how popular a view it may be--is that some have suggested rather than a supernatural miracle here, this is a "stone soup" style miracle if you're familiar with that old folk tale. The idea is that rather than creating food out of thin air, the people present already had the food, and Jesus managed to draw out their generous side so that they shared everything they had until there was more than enough for everyone. There's definitely a part of me that likes this view of the story, as it appeals to people's better natures, which despite a real cynical side I know I have, I'd like to believe in.

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.

And was baptized of John in Jordan (Matthew 3)

Just to keep things in order, in case anyone tries to read this blog straight through rather than jumping around, I'll insert a short note here that I've already analyzed the rest of Matthew 1 here, and Matthew 2 here (with verse 11 in particular addressed here). Merry Christmas and all that. So, on to chapter 3.

The first issue that the SAB has with this chapter is whether or not John baptized any Pharisees. I think this isn't a problem; in verse 11 I don't think John is addressing the Pharisees in particular, but the crowd at large and saying that baptism is something he's offering whether or not any particular member of the crowd is taking him up on the offer. As for calling them "O generation of vipers...", yes, I'd agree that this is harsh language, but I'd note that the word "generation" may be somewhat questionable in meaning, so I'm not sure what the SAB is insinuating about "an entire generation". He may not even be talking about the Pharisees as a whole.

I think marking verses 10-12 with violence may be a bit strong, but I don't have a major issue with this. The point that John is making is a metaphorical one. If a fruit tree doesn't bear fruit, then what good is it, and why not just use it for firewood? So if you're someone who isn't doing something worthwhile with their life, then what good are you? It's food for thought, in my opinion.

Now the SAB thinks that Jesus coming to John to get baptized is absurd, and as they note, John himself seems to be of the same opinion. It is rather odd, and for the very reasons that the SAB points out. If baptism is is about repentance and sinfulness, and Jesus is sinless, then what the heck is going on? I've heard it suggested that Jesus is getting baptized in order to be an example for generations of Christians to come, which might be possible, but I think that it's a mistake to assume that everything Jesus ever did was intended to be an example to follow. I suppose it does make some slight sense out of verse 15, of which the SAB wonders as to the meaning.

The last issue in this chapter is a question concerning the wording used by the voice of God, which here disagrees with the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke. Make what you want of this sort of thing; slight differences in wording in the Gospels don't bother me personally, and this is only the first of many of this sort. I figure if the gist of the wording is the same, why should it bother me?