They came unto the sepulchre (Matthew 28)

Matthew 28 is filled with a ton of stuff. I may have tried to squeeze in too much by making the last chapter one post, we'll see how this one goes.

The SAB has a slew of questions on just the first two verses, so I'm going to list them all here: "How many women went to the sepulchre?" "When did they arrive?" "Whom did they see at the tomb?" "Was the tomb open or closed?" "Were the men or angels inside or outside the tomb when first seen?" Here is my take. A whole bunch of women came to the sepulchre, but they didn't all travel in one group, and in particular, Mary Magdalene was the first to arrive, before dawn, alone. She sees the stone rolled away already, why? Because as it says in verse 2, an angel had come and rolled it back. (Yes, I am suggesting that chronologically, verses 2-4 happened before verse 1, and it's my understanding that the Greek can support that.) The angel that rolled back the stone was seen by the guards outside the tomb, but the angel (or two angels, it's not clear) that spoke to the women was inside the tomb.

"Did the women immediately tell the disciples?" Well, they told them as soon as they found them. I would say that the verse in Mark indicates that they were too afraid to go and tell just anyone, so they stayed silent until they found who they were looking for.

Verse nine gives us a ton of questions again: "To whom did Jesus first appear?" "Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus?" "Was it OK to touch the risen Jesus?" "Was Mary Magdalene happy or sad when she saw the risen Jesus?" The question of to whom Jesus first appeared is a tricky one, but the answer is Mary Magdalene. There is a lot of stuff going on that Sunday morning, and in the midst of it, it's easy to miss that as Mark 16:9 says, the story at John 20:11ff is the story of Jesus first appearing to anyone. Although Matthew 28:9 sounds like a first appearance, in John 2:2 we are told that as Mary M. came to the tomb and found it empty, she immediately ran and got Peter and John. While the other women were travelling, Mary came back to the tomb and saw Jesus first. Mary was not with the group of women spoken of in verse 9, and when she saw Jesus, she didn't recognize him at first. While it did seem to be okay to touch the risen Jesus in general, Jesus did for some reason tell Mary M. not to touch him. Whether this was only okay later, or there was something about the way that Mary was touching him (I've heard some suggest that she was clinging to him tightly, and he was telling her that he could not stay) I don't know. Anyway, Mary was indeed sad when she first saw Jesus, but mainly because she didn't recognize him and was still confused.

"Where did Jesus tell his disciples to meet him?" This is simple: He told them to go to Galilee. Once they had gone to Galilee and met with him, he told them to go back to Jerusalem, where they would wait for Pentecost. "How many disciples did Jesus appear to in his first post resurrection appearance?" The linked page might be a problem if any of those verses actually said it was the "first" post resurrection appearance; I'll stick with "One", that being Mary Magdalene. (It's worth noting about the 1Corinthians passage that sometimes the Bible uses the term "the twelve" to refer to the Apostles, even when there were less than twelve present at an event.

"How much power did Jesus have?" I think you have to take into consideration that this is the post resurrection Jesus, and he's more powerful than he was while a mere mortal.

"Should the gospel be preached to everyone?" I thought I had addressed this previously, but not very thoroughly apparently. Yes, the Gospel should be preached to everyone, despite the fact that sometimes the timing is not right to preach to any one particular group.

"In whose name is baptism to be performed?" I don't see a strong reason why it should be one way or the other. That's the end of the book, and I think I'll just let that one drop.

It is finished (Matthew 27)

Matthew 27 opens with the story of Judas Iscariot having second thoughts about his betrayal of Jesus. As with Peter, this leads to a series of interrelated questions: "How did Judas die?", "Who bought the Potter's field?", and "What did Judas do with the silver?" The standard skeptical solution to these questions is that there are two stories. In one, Judas throws away the silver and hangs himself, and the priests buy the field. In the other, Judas takes the silver and buys the field wherein he falls down and dies. The apologist's fusing together of these stories into one coherent whole is that Judas threw away the money and went and hanged himself. Having hanged there for some time, the rope broke and Judas' body fell down and burst in a field. The priests, who had this money that they refused to take back, decided that this money should go towards purchasing the field in which Judas died, and thus Judas vicariously bought the field after his death. For either or both reasons, the field became known as "the field of blood". As the SAB notes, verse 8 saying "unto this day" indicates that the Gospel of Matthew was written long after the events happened; certainly nobody is suggesting that the Gospel accounts were written immediately after the events they record; I'd have to look it up but even generous estimates say something like 30 years later for the earliest.

As for the misquote in verses 9-10, I've heard it said that the Jewish Canon had a bunch of minor prophets all in one book with Jeremiah, so misattributing a prophecy to Jeremiah could happen at times because of that, although I suppose it's still technically an error.

"Was Jesus silent during his trial?" I would say that he wasn't. Note that while verse 12 says "he answered nothing" this comes right after verse 11's "And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest." I think that the point that Matthew 27:14 and Mark 15:5 are making is that Jesus never said a word in his own defense. Nonetheless, Pilate seemed to be inclined to believe that Jesus was innocent and tried to have him released, to no avail.

Verse 25 does indeed blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, but I think those that use this verse as an excuse for Antisemitism conveniently forget that Jesus forgave his killers on the cross.

Eventually Jesus ends up in a robe, but it's not clear who put the robe on him nor actually what color the robe was. I'm willing to concede there are errors coming up here, but they are errors that are tough to fully pin down. Both Herod and Pilate were governors who had Roman soldiers working for them (I think only Luke has Jesus being brought before Herod) and there may have been some confusion in the order of events. Also, Jesus was so beaten and bloodied at this time that it may have been hard for bystanders to tell the color of the robe anyway, what with it being likely soaked with Jesus' blood.

"Who carried Jesus' cross?" While John's Gospel fails to mention Simon of Cyrene, that doesn't mean that he didn't exist, nor does his mention in the other Gospels mean that Jesus did not bear his cross part of the way.

"What did the soldiers give Jesus to drink?" is another question that the SAB brings up, but I think this is a manufactured contradiction. If you check the context of the verses on the linked page, you'll see that the offerings of drinks were at at least two separate moments, as the Matthew and Mark verses were before the crucifixion while Luke and John were during the crucifixion. I would suggest that Jesus was offered a drink three times, twice before his crucifixion, and then once on the cross.

"What did the sign over Jesus' head say?" While it's true as the SAB points out that none of the Gospels agree on the exact wording of the sign, they're pretty close to a consensus, and it doesn't bother me.

"Did both thieves revile Jesus?" This is one I've heard a few times, and I've also heard the standard reply, which is that both thieves reviled Jesus, but one of them had a change of heart, which for some reason is only recorded in Luke's Gospel.

"What were the last words of Jesus?" I can't say for sure, as this is definitely a question with no clear answer, but I will note one thing about the passage here in Matthew: in verse 50, it says that Jesus "cried again with a loud voice", suggesting that verse 46 was not his last words. It doesn't solve the question, but it narrows it down a bit.

"When did the Temple curtain rip?" It must have been a while since I read the Gospels, since I thought this event was only recorded in Matthew. My thoughts about having read this before will, I think, deal with the contradiction: Does it really matter? As far as I can fathom, since Jesus was killed outside of the city, and the veil of the temple was inside the city, inside the inner chamber of the temple, there is no possible way that there was an eyewitness to both of these events simultaneously. I would say it happened when Jesus died, and leave it at that.

"Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead?" I actually addressed this back in 1Samuel 28, but perhaps, no definitely a bit more could be added here. When the verses in the first column speak of Jesus being the first to rise from the dead, they're talking about something very specific; they're talking about rising from the dead to eternal life. There are a number of other individuals who were revived from death to continue their life (as happens today under normal circumstances in hospitals and such) and at least one instance in the Bible of a person's ghost being brought back to speak from beyond the grave. Now the odd occurrence that is recorded here in verses 52-53 is strange in many ways, since only Matthew records it, and it's not clear what the significance of it is. In short, I don't think there is a contradiction, but I'd be inclined to agree that this passage is a strange one.

"What did the centurion call Jesus?" Some have suggested that in fact there were two centurions present, and that each one said something different. It's also possible that a single centurion said two things.

"From where did the women watch?" I think the answer to this issue is that there were many women watching, and while most of them were far away, a small group of them (those mentioned in John's Gospel) were nearby.

"Who buried Jesus?" I don't think there is a contradiction here. Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus' body, and with Nicodemus' help, buried him in a sepulchre. As it happens, both of these men were members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council, so it all fits together.

I know not this man of whom ye speak (Matthew 26:31-75)

The SAB has a trio of questions about Peter's upcoming denial, and before I even check, I seem to recall that there was some vagueness there. "Did Jesus say before the cock crow or before the cock crow twice?" and "Did the cock crow before or after Peter's denial?" and "To whom did Peter deny knowing Jesus?" I think there are definite contradictions present in all but the second question, and that's because with the cock crowing twice, it just works out that way; that is to say in a way that I don't think the second question really adds anything to the problem of the first stated contradiction. I suppose I should put in an opinion as to which I think is right; normally if it's three to one, you'd think you'd go with the three, but it's generally understood that Mark's Gospel (the one in which the cock crows twice) was told mainly from Peter's point of view, which makes me lean towards the "twice" thing. As for the third question, again there does seem to be discrepancy, and I'd lean towards Mark's Gospel, but if anything can be said in defense of the discrepancy here, he was in the middle of a large crowd, and there may have been a lot of people talking to him in the end. Beyond that, I've got nothing on these.

"Did Jesus ask God to save him from crucifixion?" I can see how this could look like a contradiction, but there's something important in all of these passages in both columns. In every telling, Jesus says that in the end, no matter what his vulnerable human body might desire, he is there to do the will of God the Father, and that means going to the cross.

"Did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss?" Well, three of the four Gospels say so, and the fourth Gospel doesn't say that he didn't, so I'm inclined towards "Yes." (The answer to the question of whether Jesus came to bring peace was addressed here with an answer of "It's complicated.")

"Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first?" This one takes some explanation, and it may come up elsewhere. This was a unique situation in the history of Israel in which there were two high priests, one of which had been appointed by the people and the second of which had been put into the position by the Romans. Since both were serving as high priest, Jesus was probably taken before the both of them. It may not have been simultaneous, but essentially at the same time.

"Did Jesus say, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up'?" At first I was confused by this question, since I couldn't see the difference between the columns on the linked page; then I realized what it was: the verses in Matthew and Mark say that "false witnesses" attested to him saying this. I think you have to look carefully at the wording, and that in the John passage, Jesus is talking about the "temple" of his physical body, while the witnesses are making it to sound like he's talking about the physical temple building. I don't blame the SAB for calling this a contradiction, as it's pretty subtle.

"How did Jesus respond to the high priest?" This is another fairly subtle one, and I say that it's subtle because the three responses given are still very similar, from "Thou hast said" to "Ye say that I am" to the very straightforward "I am". All of them are answering in the affirmative, although as the SAB points out, the first two are less straightforward, but the second includes "I am" within it. A possibility is that Jesus said something like "Thou hast said that I am" and it got misheard in various ways, or he may have been asked multiple times and different responses got recorded by different authors but I'm not sure what is the best way to resolve this. As I've said previously slight difference in wording doesn't bother me in general, but this seems a bit more important, as it's a crucial moment in Jesus' trial. Leaving that hanging, however, it's worth noting that, as in modern law, a witness is not required to incriminate himself. It's one of a handful of things that made Jesus' trial illegal under Jewish law. (The SAB notes that the high priest rent his clothes, which I seem to recall also being against Jewish Law.)

There they made him a supper (Matthew 26:1-30)

So with Matthew 26, we're really getting close to the end of all of this, and Jesus is getting close to the end of his life. (The question as to whether he forewarned his disciples of his death I covered in Matthew 20.)

There's a story in verses 6-13 in which a woman pours some expensive ointment on Jesus' head, and there is a question of whether it was a wasteful thing to do. While I think the case can certainly be made that it was truly wasteful and could have been better spent on helping the poor, but there are a few things to note. The parallel telling of the story from the Gospel of John points out that it was Judas Iscariot in particular who was complaining, and the reason he was complaining was not that he cared about the poor, but because he wanted the money for himself. (The passage also says that the woman, who is there identified as Mary of Bethany, poured it on Jesus' feet, a contradiction the SAB missed, but I'm sure it'll be added soon after this post is published.) Also note that Jesus is making a point in two parts. First, that he's being anointed for burial, which shows that the woman has a deeper understanding of what's going on, and second, that since he's about to die, this is the last time the disciples will have a chance to do anything for/with Jesus before he's dead, while caring for the poor--while yes, it's important--is work that will never end.

Anyway, it's Passover, so Jesus and his disciples get together to have a traditional Passover supper (commonly known as a "Seder") which comes to be known as the "Last Supper". Jesus takes the occasion to reinterpret a lot of symbolic items from the Seder in respect to his death and resurrection. A lot of these are open to interpretation, and the SAB marks the passage with the "interpretation" icon, but I'm not just going to address the items the SAB brings up, but bring up a few others.

In verse 26, it says that Jesus takes bread, blesses it and breaks it, saying "Take, eat; this is my body." (This bread is very specific bread, as it happens. At a Seder, only unleavened bread is eaten (leaven being symbolic of evil) and there is a special thing done with some of the bread which I believe is symbolic of the Trinity and the death of Jesus. Three pieces of bread are set aside in a special pouch, and the middle one of the three (the afikomen) is broken, taken away and hidden, and then brought back to the table. This piece is put back together, and then everyone is required to eat a piece of it.) Then Jesus takes a cup of wine and tells them "Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood..." (This cup of wine is the third of four cups of wine that are had during the Seder, this one being known as the "Cup of Blessing".) So Jesus is taking traditional elements of the Seder and reinterpreting them in a messianic manner, which leads to the issue of various interpretations.

As the SAB points out, there is doctrinal difference among Christians over whether this is literally the body and blood of Jesus. Most Protestants consider it to be symbolic, while Catholics believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that is, that the bread and wine will somehow become the actual body and blood when consumed. What the SAB apparently doesn't know (or I assume they'd mention it) is that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that communion is meant only to be taken on Passover (while most Christian churches will do it weekly or monthly). Admittedly, there could have been more clarity given, and it's a bit sad that despite the lack of clarity, pretty much every church is 100% convinced that their method and doctrine is correct, and others are mistaken, sometimes to the point of heresy.

The SAB asks "Is it okay to drink alcohol?" and I'll stand on my answer given in the middle of this post, which boiled down largely to a common sense stance of "It's okay in moderation."

I will not keep anger for ever (Matthew 25)

Matthew 25 opens with the parable of the ten virgins. I've dealt with the issue of polygamy before, but let me take a moment to reiterate the important misunderstanding involved in this passage: the ten virgins are not brides, they're bridesmaids. The man in the parable isn't coming to marry them, they're just the welcoming committee to lead him to the party. (Although polygamy was probably still pretty prevalent in Jesus' day, I think men still married one woman at a time.) This parable is about being ready for the second coming, but once again, I'm not real clear on what the oil represents.

The next parable is of a businessman with some servants. The SAB thinks it's strange that the master was glad that the servants invested the money, but I think it's loosely implied that that is what they were meant to do. The SAB marks the parable as cruel and violent, and honestly, I've tended to feel the same; why punish someone for not investing? At least he didn't lose it, right? This is a troubling parable, as most people have, as far as I've heard, interpreted this as being about Jesus entrusting his followers with the Gospel. If you don't share the Gospel, are you going to go to Hell, then? Parables like this one and the previous really can be confusing and troubling, I'll readily admit.

Then Jesus goes on to describe the manner in which judgment is going to come at the second coming. In this case, while most of the time there does seem to be the sentiment that salvation comes by faith, here the judgment seems clearly to be based on how people treated those less fortunate than themselves (something which the SAB marks "Good stuff"). All of this leads to a lot of questions. One thing that may explain discrepancies with other concepts of eternal judgment is that it is said here that Jesus is judging nations rather than individual people. It's always been my understanding that God deals with people not just on an individual level, but in groups; what this means for said groups is a bit hard to say. If a nation was made up of mainly cruel people, but there were a few good people mixed in, then how does the judging go? I assume that the good people get accepted, but if the nation as a whole is rejected, then who or what gets judged? In case I wasn't making it clear, I'm saying that I'm a bit fuzzy on this event overall, but I'm going to go to the individual questions that the SAB raises.

When was Heaven created? I'm going with Heaven being created when (or even slightly before) the earth was created. While the verse in John says Jesus is going "to prepare a place for you" that doesn't mean that Heaven does not exist, it means that Jesus has work to do to get Heaven ready for everyone coming there. (It was probably spiritual work, not actually physically making rooms or whatever.)

How should strangers be treated? I'm going to go with "Be kind to them." I think the verses in the second column are meant for a special purpose, and that there are certain situations that were particular to the early Israelites that required them to deal mercilessly with strangers, but those were not general rules.

"What must you do to be saved?" is a question I keep glossing over because the way the SAB puts it, it's a big question to tackle, so I'm honestly procrastinating on it. However, "Has there ever been a righteous person?" is one I addressed back in Genesis.

"How long does God's anger last?" is a good question, and I see the page there has a lot of food for thought. I think there needs to be a few things said that clears away some, but not all of the issues here. First of all, not all of these verses are intended as general statements, but rather some of them may pertain to particular incidents. Secondly, "how long" is a rather subjective matter, especially when you're dealing with a being like God who is eternal; being angry for forty years might be to his mind "but a moment". Thirdly, the length of God's anger may not be commensurate with the length of the punishment. (Maybe God was angry just for a moment, but they had to wander for forty years anyway?) Just because there's an everlasting punishment doesn't mean that there was an everlasting anger to go with it. So all that being said, I would say that the only verse on this page that clearly states God will be angry at someone forever is Malachi 1:4. Does that still leave a contradiction? Maybe, but I think the rest of these verses are more vague than the SAB makes them out to be.

"Does Hell exist?" I addressed here, and while I didn't have a good definitive answer for it in the end, I think, "Is death final?" was an issue I addressed back in Joshua.

He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation (Matthew 24)

Wow, chapter 24 looks pretty intense, at least there are a ton of notes on it, so I get the feeling this is going to be a heck of a lot more work than the last chapter.

So Jesus points out the Temple, and tells his disciples that the whole of it is going to be torn down (which I know the SAB doesn't keep track of prophecies that came true, but before the end of the 1st century, the temple was destroyed, and has yet to be rebuilt), this leads to the disciples asking Jesus to tell them more about the future, and Jesus unloads a whole lot of stuff on them. Note that while the SAB says this is all talking about the end of the world, Jesus actually says in verse 6 that "the end is not yet." Still, the general thrust of Jesus' speech here is the events leading up to the second coming and thereafter the end of the world, so make of it what you will.

I'm not sure what to make of the hodge-podge of icons the SAB tosses up over this chapter, including prophecy, absurdity, science/history, injustice, cruelty/violence, contradiction, and interpretation. Women and family values get tossed in about half way through as well. Perhaps I should address this chapter by icon?

Prophecy: Yes, this is all Jesus talking about the future, and I assume that the SAB brings out the "prophecy" icon when it feels that there was a prediction made that didn't come true. I think it's not hard to see that a lot of the things that Jesus talks about here have indeed come to pass, and since the world isn't ended yet, anything that hasn't happened (there are a few, admittedly) still could. I think that the issue that the SAB has with this is the idea that "all of these things will happen within the lifespan of Jesus' contemporaries" as they seem to take verse 34 as saying. Verse 34 actually says, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." I think the interpretation hinges on what you think "This generation" means. It's not unreasonable to take the position that the SAB takes, but I've always taken the position that he was talking about the generation that sees certain things come to pass will see the end. What certain things? Some have suggested that the generation that sees the recreation of the nation of Israel is the generation talked about here, and that's a possibility. (The SAB even mentions this possibility with respect to the failed modern-day prophecy of Hal Lindsey on verse 32.) Another is the generation that sees the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, as that sets the stage for the "abomination of desolation" which is something horrible that's supposed to happen in the temple. There's a lot of room for interpretation here, and I think it's a bad idea for even (maybe especially) Christians to try to read too much specific in here. (The supposed failed prophecy of verse 14 I discussed back in Matthew 10.)

Absurdity: As usual, I have a hard time figuring out what the SAB specifically finds absurd here, so I don't think I can address this one.

Science and history: I don't see any obvious historic problems with this chapter, so I'm guessing the issue here is the scientific note on verse 29? This all goes back to some similar things I said when going through the early part of Genesis. Just because the verse says "the moon shall not give her light" doesn't mean that Jesus is making a scientific statement about the nature of moonlight. The very fact that English has the word "moonlight" means that we can talk about it while being aware that it is, by nature, reflected sunlight. Now, as for stars falling from Heaven, this could just be a description of a meteor shower, which people today who know the true nature thereof still refer to as "shooting stars". In short, I think the SAB is reading way too much into this short verse.

Injustice, cruelty and violence: I'd be willing to say that there's some unjust and violent stuff happening here, but usually when the SAB calls something unjust or cruel, it's trying to say that God in particular was being unjust or cruel, which I don't see any particular basis for here. Some awful stuff happens during this time described, but I don't see any of it explicitly said to be the doing of God.

Contradiction: The SAB marks a handful of passages with contradictions. The only one I haven't covered elsewhere is Will Jesus' second coming be visible to all? to which I would say that the single verse in the "no" column is not meant to be taken as for all time.

Interpretation: Not sure how to address this one since I'm not sure which verse(s) it refers to, and I tend to find these interpretive differences uninteresting to me, since I usually care very little what the Watchtower Society or Hal Lindsey might have had to say about it.

Women, family values: I guess verse 19 is the particular verse that this issue refers to, but I think it's easily addressed. Jesus isn't saying that pregnant and nursing women are especially cursed, but only points out that when things get really difficult, it may be especially difficult for this subsection of society.

And thou shalt bring it to thy father (Matthew 23)

Chapter 23's first issue is a familiar one, the question of whether we should let others see our good works. I'm standing by my answer in chapter 5, namely that it's not so much whether you're seen, but what your intentions are.

Next, it asks whether it is OK to call anyone "father". Frankly, this verse has always confused me, since Jesus doesn't seem to make exception for our earthly fathers, and I've actually met people who feel this is the right interpretation, although it seems absurd to me. I think that the best interpretation (my opinion) is that this verse and the following are saying that people of religious authority should not take fancy titles for themselves, and it has little to nothing to do with parenthood or slavery.

Then Jesus lets loose with some harsh language for his detractors (again I stand on my answer in chapter 5 concerning the term "fool") which I'd say you need to decide for yourself whether they deserve it. After all, in verse 31, when Jesus calls them "the children of them which killed the prophets" he's technically telling the truth. Now when he specifically mentions "Zacharias son of Barachias" there does seem to be a problem there, as the name "Barachias" doesn't seem to appear elsewhere in the Bible, and the easily-identified Zacharias does seem to be the son of Jehoiada. I don't have any easy solutions for this one, the only things coming to mind are that "Barachias" may have been a grandfather or great-grandfather, or alternately (but more of a stretch) "son of Barachias" may have been some sort of title, as "Barachias" means "blessing of Jehovah". I really don't know, although it might be worth noting for better or worse that there was another "Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah" mentioned in Isaiah 8. (That could be source of the solution OR the problem, really.)

Doth not your master pay tribute? (Matthew 22)

Matthew 22 opens with a parable of a marriage feast, and it's a pretty strange parable once again. It almost makes sense (well as much sense as you can expect from a parable) until you get down to verse 11, at which point there is some guy without a "wedding garment" which I'll venture to guess meant that he wasn't dressed up properly for the occasion. But then, these guests were just a bunch of random people called in from off of the street, if we're to understand the story, so...? I have to admit, this one has always stumped me on the face of it. There's a symbolic aspect that almost makes sense, but it involves reading in a lot that really isn't there. See, there's this theological concept that when we are saved, our unrighteousness is removed from us, and we become clothed with the righteousness of God, and so it might seem that perhaps this guy accepted the invitation, but thought he could get into the party on his own merits, despite being just some guy off the street. See, it only just barely makes sense of it, and it involves bringing in a lot of theological baggage; it probably was a waste of space and I should just left it, but that's the luxury of blogging I guess: waste as much space as you care to, and just move on. (I've addressed the existence of Hell in Matthew 10 as deeply as I care to, so I'll drop that link and move on.)

After this parable comes the famous story of Jesus being asked whether or not one should pay taxes. There's a lot of interesting material here. Note that the Pharisees and the Herodians (who usually hated each other) were working together to trick Jesus. Note that it was a trick, and that a simple answer of "No" would be considered insurrection against Rome, while a simple answer of "Yes" would be denying the authority of Jewish nationalism. Also, although I'm pulling this from vague memory, note that the "image and superscription" on the coin were enough to make Roman coins quintessentially tiny pagan idols. Like the SAB, I think Jesus' answer is not only saying pay taxes, but that one should keep church and state separate (although it's not very clear as to which is which overall, but the concept stands, I think.)

Now the Sadducees--who were a religious group who didn't believe in an afterlife as the text says--come up to Jesus with a bizarre question that, while clearly made up, was also within the realm of possibility of Mosaic Law. Jesus skips over the whole question to point out that in the afterlife, there is no marriage. (It doesn't say no sex here, but it's not outrageous to imply it.)

Finally after all the tricky questions, someone simply asks him to name the greatest commandment, to which Jesus replies "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." and adds on the second-greatest, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." which the SAB is happy to get on board with as being great, but asks then how should nonbelievers be treated? I may have skipped this before, but I think it's pretty straightforward most of the time. The section that says "Shun them" is not a problem, in my estimation. First of all, I think "Shun them" is an overstatement of what this verse it really saying, which is that you should avoid entering into legal contracts with them, but you can still love them while keeping yourself disentangled legally. It's the "Kill them" section that's clearly harder to deal with, duh. First of all, I don't think that this verse is saying that anybody who is an unbeliever should be treated this way, even in ancient Israel (which this is another verse that I think applies mainly if not only to that context). I think this is particularly for a person who believes in a strange religion and tries to convince others to follow him into that belief. So how does this fit into loving your neighbor? I suggest this: if following after strange gods is going to lead to ruin, then it is best that this sort of theological swindling should be dealt with the same way that purely physical swindling is dealt with. You have ways that you deal with a thief. You have ways that you deal with a murderer. Someone who is enticing people after false gods is a thief and a murderer of people's souls, and should be dealt with seriously, at least in ancient Israel. Yeah, it sounds harsh, and it is, but I think it's for a reason.

The last issue on this chapter is whether Jesus is the son of David. (Remember in Biblical language, this meant ancestor; Jesus was certainly not the actual son of David.) I think that the two verses in the "No" column are not Jesus saying "No", but rather pointing out to those within hearing that the actual relationship between the Messiah and David was a complicated one, and not as simple as just a mere ancestral one. Jesus may be the son of David, but he's greater than David all the same.

Vile figs, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil (Matthew 21)

The first question of chapter 21 is the timing of Jesus' "temple tantrum", a term I've never heard before, and while I don't think it's likely to catch on, it does have a ring to it. The Gospel of John clearly puts it at the beginning of his ministry, while the others put it near the end. There are two common interpretations of this discrepancy, the most common one being that this event happened twice, and John's Gospel tells the first time, while the others tell the latter. Another possibility (although this may be my own interpretation alone, as I can't recall specifically hearing this anywhere) is that John's Gospel is simply not interested in chronology, and specifically outside of the last week of Jesus' life, John simply strings together stories he remembers in any old order, which also explains why his Gospel is so different from the other three.

The next question is the manner of transportation that Jesus used to enter Jerusalem. There is definitely some confusion here, but note that while the other Gospels are arguing between a colt and an ass, the passage here in Matthew talks of "a colt the foal of an ass" which would indicate that the colt was an ass nonetheless. So that really leaves only Matthew that seems to be indicating Jesus riding on two animals. Since, as the SAB itself seems to be well aware, this is pretty much a physical impossibility, I would say that Jesus rode on the colt (a young ass) and perhaps the mare (if that's the right term) was brought along.

Anyway, all of this was supposed to fulfill a prophecy in Zachariah 9:9, but the SAB objects that this cannot be correct due to technicalities in the following verses, namely that Jesus failed to have an army or (an earthly) kingdom. This is the sort of technicality that never bothers Christians, though, I'm afraid, as there is an understanding that a future day is coming at which all of that will be completely fulfilled. There are actually a lot of prophecies that Jesus sort of half-fulfilled with an understanding that the complete fulfillment would come in the future. I'm sure most skeptics will call that sort of thing a cop-out once again, but I've got nothing else on this one.

Later in the chapter, Jesus famously curses a fig tree, but how fast did the curse take? In this telling of the story, it says "presently the fig tree withered away" while in Mark's Gospel, we're told "in the morning" they saw the "tree dried up from the roots". This could certainly be an outright contradiction, or it could be that certain members of Jesus' party noticed it at different times, or it could be that there's something else going on here which is a pure guess on my part: perhaps "withered away" and "dried up from the roots" could be different terms for stages of drying out that the tree passed through. I don't know enough Greek (or enough about figs) to say whether that has any deeper merit, I only toss it out as a possibility, as I recall there was a similar issue involved in drying of the ground after Noah's flood. (I think I've mostly been skipping the "What the Bible says about X" pages when they come up, but I think there's a quick note I could make about the fig page: All this destroying of fig trees is, I think a testimony of how good figs are rather than bad. After all, if you want to punish someone, you take away something good, right? You don't see God smiting their poison ivy or some such plant, do you?)

Jesus tells a parable of a rented vineyard in verses 33-41, and the SAB marks it with injustice and violence. I've got to ask, towards whom? I would agree that the people running the vineyard were unjust and violent, but I'm not sure that's what the SAB means, perhaps implying that "the lord of the vineyard" was unjust and violent for taking revenge on these men for killing his servants and son. If so, I can't really agree.

Last issue in the chapter is verse 44, which is marked as violent, unjust, and intolerant. That's a lot to pile on a bit of poetic language, as the stone spoken of is indeed Jesus, but that being so, what does the verse really mean? (After all, Jesus is not literally a stone.) I have my own thoughts, but barring an interpretation of what the SAB thinks it means, I'm not sure what to say.

I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off (Matthew 19)

In Matthew 19, verses 4-10, the SAB brings up some questions regarding marriage. Hopefully, I've already answered these elsewhere, let me see. Is marriage a good thing? I addressed this largely in Genesis 2, at which time I said that for most people, being married is a great thing, but Paul happens to point out that as good as it is, marriage complicates life, and one should be careful to think about the implications of that sort of commitment before entering into it. I addressed polygamy most fully on this page, where I said that I don't think polygamy is a sin, but it's far from a desirable state of affairs, usually leading to trouble. What about divorce? I addressed that back in chapter 5, and it's worth noting here that the SAB puts verses 6 and 9 in separate categories; as I've said before, an apparent contradiction that follows so quickly is usually (in my opinion) an indication that one is not understanding the real meaning of the passage: verse 9 is further clarification on verse 6, not a contradiction.

Following this, Jesus has some cryptic things to say about eunuchs in verse 12, and while I don't really know what it's about, I can give some speculation and response to the SAB's speculation. The idea presented that perhaps Jesus is talking about homosexuals is a thought provoking one; I myself had once considered that possibility that this verse was referring to transsexuals, after all, there do exist genetic disorders in which a person does not develop functional genitals. On the other hand, people who "have made themselves eunuchs" does seem to suggest self-castration, but if I can appeal to hyperbole again, it may be that he is referring to people who have taken a vow of celibacy, which doesn't seem too far of a stretch. (This would imply that those who were "born eunuchs" are people with no natural sexual drive, a concept not unheard of.) The SAB links to two pages that are almost identical (and neither of which mention the eunuch from Acts 8, who might be considered noteworthy) to ask what God may feel about castration, both of which hinge on Deut. 23:1 which says that a man with wounded genitals "shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." I really should do some more research here, and I'm surprised I haven't covered that phrase already. One thing I'm fairly sure it does mean is that such a man cannot serve as a priest in the temple. I don't believe it means that such a man cannot be a practicing Jew (and that is an important distinction, as we're now talking about the N.T. church, not the O.T. "congregation"). I suspect that the distinction is that such a person cannot perform any religious duties, which even non-priests perform at times. (If Jesus is speaking in hyperbole, none of this matters, of course.)

The bit about children was already covered in the previous chapter, and while each of the particulars of verse 17 have been covered, it's an odd verse that deserves some special attention. Jesus says "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God." Jesus seems, as the SAB claims, to be saying that he is not neither good nor God, so what's going on? I seem to vaguely remember hearing before that it was the belief of the Pharisees that "good" was an adjective that could only rightfully applied to God; whether this was the case, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Jesus is cautioning this guy to think twice before applying labels to people and things, even if he happens to be right.

Now the exchange that happens after this is one that's repeated in the other Gospels, and is a source of some contention, even outside of the SAB. Is Jesus really saying that the way to be saved is to keep the commandments? While the consensus is no, there is a strain of thought among Christianity that since Jesus said it, he must have really meant it, so what is the implication? (And the fact that Jesus is shown as listing a different set of commandments in each telling is once again something I think of as being of minimal importance; he was just tossing out a few, not making an exhaustive list.) Well in the case of this guy, Jesus shatters this guy's hope by telling him to give away all of his possessions to the poor. It's been said (even in the Bible) that the whole of the law can be summed up by "Love God with all your heart", and "Love your neighbor as yourself." If this guy couldn't give up all that he had, then he certainly loved money more than God, and he also surely wasn't able to love his neighbor as himself. (As for finer points on stealing and killing, I covered those in Exodus 20.) Jesus may be saying that you could go to heaven IF you could keep all the commandments, but that's an awfully big IF.

Is it OK to be rich? This can be a sticking point in the Bible, and I think the answer is subtle. I don't think the Bible ever outright says that wealth is a sign of wickedness, but rather shows awareness of that saying that to whom much is given, much is expected. If you're a good, honest, and hard-working person, wealth will probably come to you, but once you have it, God will expect you to use your wealth for good things. Sure there are a lot of rich people who are greedy bastards, but I personally have known people with six and seven-figure incomes who are some of the most generous and kind people you'd ever know. I think the N.T. verses the SAB gives, especially the one here in Matthew, are pointing out the danger of the love of money.

The question of whether God can do anything was addressed in Genesis 18. The issue of the apostles sitting on 12 thrones is not something I've ever addressed, although I recently asked a pastor his opinion on the matter (In the context of Revelation 4) and he suggested that rather than Judas Iscariot, Paul might be sitting on one of the thrones mentioned. Lastly, I don't think that verse 29 is suggesting that people should give up their wives and children, but rather that if they end up having to because of following Jesus, they will get something better as a reward.

I understood as a child (Matthew 18)

I think I'm going to be a little disappointed in myself when it comes to chapter 18, as the SAB opens with a question that I don't think I have a good answer for, even though it seems like it shouldn't be a tough one. Is it a good thing to be childish? I think it's quite clear from the number of times Jesus makes this statement that being like a child is a desirable state. However, it's also clear that Paul is teaching childishness is bad. As I said, I don't know the resolution of this issue, but I do think I can shed some light on possibilities. You don't have to be a theologian to recognize that there are traits common to children that are both desirable and not. Children are very trusting, full of energy, and generally cute. At the same time, they are ignorant, weak, and prone to temper tantrums. Perhaps the Bible could stand to be more clear on what it means when it compares us to children, whether negatively or positively. The one thing that Jesus does specify here as a positive trait is humility, which is certainly something that young children are very good at, and I could see being a positive trait for a Christian.

I don't think that Jesus is condemning the whole world in verse 7, but rather making an observation that the world is full of bad things. And as I said back in chapter five when similar things were said by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, I think verses 8-9 are hyperbole.

The SAB asks whether God can be seen. I addressed this in Genesis 12, but I think this verse is a special case, because it's talking about angels rather than human beings; I don't doubt that angels can see God.

While the note on verses 15-17 is talking about JWs, which would usually mean I don't care, it's on a noteworthy subject that I might as well address. I think that the Catholic church and the Jehovah's Witnesses have both been excellent examples of how not to deal with child molesters. While I could possibly imagine that there might be an acceptable way for these organizations to deal with such troubles internally, the fact is (as far as I am aware) both organizations have simply not dealt with the problem at all. And after all, in the end, it's turned out to be counter-productive if their main aim was to avoid shaming themselves. Anyway, child molestation is a serious crime, and it should be dealt with severely.

In verses 23-35 Jesus tells a parable about a king and a debtor. The SAB has problems with this parable, and while I understand, I think it's worth mentioning that it is only a parable, and as I said a few chapters back, you can't always take parables quite at face value. Just because the parable involves torture and slavery doesn't immediately imply that Jesus is coming out in favor of those things, but it does say at the end that people need to be forgiving or they will miss out on being forgiven, so take that however you will.

And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings (Matthew 17)

In chapter 17, I am once again impressed by the SAB's attention to detail. "When did the transfiguration occur?" we are asked, and I have to admit that I never noticed that Luke's Gospel says "eight days". While I guess it's a genuine error, and I don't know why Luke disagrees with the others, I'd note that it's not a detail of particular importance, and besides, Luke says "about" eight days, which is strange, but I would say that six is "about" eight. Anyway, the transfiguration happens, and for some reason this prompts the disciples to ask about the prophecy concerning the prophet Elijah, which I addressed in chapter 11.

In verse 14, a man brings his "lunatick" son to Jesus. Interestingly, the odd term seems to be a direct translation, as both the English and the Greek words refer to a person who is made crazy by the moon. I'm not sure what the SAB has against this passage in particular, but it is a strange one, and I admittedly don't know what to make of it. Here's the fairly infamous verse in which Jesus says that faith can be used to move mountains, and yet I don't know of any instances of Christians doing such a thing. It may be hyperbole once again. Of course, the chapter ends with a very bizarre miracle, so who knows?

We have found the Messias (Matthew 16)

Matthew 16 has another disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees (and the Sadducees as a bonus) about showing signs. Yeah, there's some harsh language, but I think Jesus makes a good point; there have already been quite a number of signs performed by Jesus, even in front of them, and as I said back in chapter 12 when there was a similar exchange, Jesus isn't there to perform tricks for anybody.

The SAB asks of verse 17 "How did Peter find out that Jesus was the Messiah?" I can see why the SAB might consider this verse a contradiction with John 1:41, but I don't think it is. Yes, Andrew told Peter that Jesus was the Messiah, but I think Jesus is saying that Peter's finally accepting this truth was a spiritual matter. I mean, I could tell any reader of my blog that Jesus was the Messiah until the second coming, but I think there needs to be something spiritual that "reveals" the truth of this to your heart, so to speak.

Verses 18-19 are open to interpretation, but it does seem on the face of it that this may be Jesus stating that Peter is to be the leader of the church; sure, you can call him the first Pope if you'd like to put it that way, I have no problem with it. Some have suggested that "this rock" that Jesus speaks of is not Peter himself, but Peter's statement of faith that Jesus is the Messiah, and there's some wiggle room for such an interpretation. As for what "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means, I can't say; as the SAB points out, the Catholic church has had a spotty history, so it's certainly not incorruptible. As a side note, I'd like to point out that protestants who like to wave aside such ugly history with declarations of, "Of, but that's the Catholic church!" can't really take such an easy out when it comes to history of the church before the protestant reformation, as until that point in most of Europe the Catholic church was synonymous with Christianity. Just a thought.

Almost immediately after praising Peter, Jesus ends up having to rebuke Peter trying to rebuke him over his coming death. Harsh, but then even a Catholic will tell you that being Pope doesn't make you perfect. (Remember also that "satan" means "adversary", and Peter was certainly being adversarial at that moment.)

In verse 25, which the SAB marks as unjust and absurd, Jesus says that one should lose one's life in order truly find it. No I don't think Jesus is saying that you should kill yourself, but is suggesting that people should put aside their personal desires and seek Jesus first. Jesus goes on to speak of how God "will reward each according to his works." and asks whether salvation is by faith alone. I think I already addressed this a few chapters back, but my view is that while salvation is by faith, in the afterlife, there are different rewards according to the works that a person of faith has done.

At the end of this chapter, Jesus makes a very strange statement, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The SAB interprets this as a statement about the end of the world, which is not unreasonable, except seeing as nearly 2,000 years have passed since Jesus made the statement and now, and we don't know of any 2,000-year-olds, this would seem to be a problem. The only solution that I know of is that some have suggested the event Jesus is talking about is not the second coming, but the strange, miraculous event that Matthew talks about in the very next chapter, known as the Transfiguration.

Ye hold the tradition of men (Matthew 15)

Matthew 15 opens with an argument between Jesus and the Pharisees over religious traditions. It's important to realize (although easy to miss) that the hand washing that is talked about here is not simply for cleanliness, but rather they're talking about a kind of ritual hand washing; I'm afraid I forget the full details at the moment. Jesus is making a statement about how the commandments of God are of higher value than mere traditions, and uses a couple of passages about a child's relation to their parents. Yeah, the law about putting a disobedient child to death is pretty severe, and I honestly don't feel equal to discussing it at length, but for the purpose of this passage, I think the point that Jesus is trying to make is that honoring your parents is serious business according to God, and the Pharisees had made a tradition that allowed people to not care for their parents. Whatever you may feel about the laws Jesus brings up, the thing is that people were using excuses to not follow them, and placing tradition over the law of God. What Jesus says in verse 13 may sound rather harsh as the SAB takes it, but I think in this context it can be taken as saying that tradition, in the end, is pointless unless it conforms to the will of God.

As I've said before, history is not one of my strong points, so I'm not sure what to say about Ezekiel's prophecy about Tyre. I'm sure there are others who have examined this topic, so maybe if I remember this later and feel ambitious, I'll look into it.

The story of the Canaanite woman in verses 21-28 is an odd one, as it makes Jesus look pretty uncaring. The interpretation that I've always heard of this story is that Jesus was testing the woman to give her a chance to show her faith. Admittedly it's still strange, but if Jesus knew that she would be that persistent, it could serve as a good example of faith and humility to other people.

Again this chapter ends with a miraculous feeding. As with the last one, there is a huge amount of leftover food, and once again, the amount is perhaps symbolic, as this would seem to be a mixed crowd (not just Jews) and seven is considered to be a number of completion. The SAB suggests that these two stories may be "the result of two oral traditions of the same fictitious story." While that doesn't seem too unreasonable, it should be noted that in the next chapter, Jesus refers back to these as two separate stories.

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.

Doth he not speak parables? (Matthew 13)

In Matthew 13, the SAB asks the question, "Did Jesus have secret teachings?" I think this is a question that ends up being simple and complicated at the same time, depending on how you look at it. On the simple side, I think that what Jesus is saying in John 18:20 is that he doesn't have a hidden agenda, not that he'd never said anything less than 100% public, which is clearly not true. On the complicated side, I've been fascinated for years with the question of what the purpose of Jesus' parables were, because it's far from completely clear. While I think most people think of them as little illustrations to help people understand spiritual truths, Jesus says outright to his disciples here and in similar passages in Mark 4 and Luke 8 that he's using parables to hide truth. And really, some of Jesus' parables are pretty twisted, and it's far from clear what the exact point is that he's trying to make. We'll get to at least one weird one in this chapter.

(The issue of whether there has ever been a righteous person was one that I addressed here, saying that there are different kinds of righteousness.)

In verses 31-32, Jesus tells the parable of the mustard seed, which is definitely one of his odd ones. Now while there are smaller seeds than the mustard seed (as the SAB points out) and so this might be considered a scientific error, there's something odd to consider here. While the mustard seed may have been the smallest one known to or used by first-century Israelites, as the SAB also points out, the mustard seed doesn't grow into a tree, and this would have been fairly common knowledge to Jesus' audience. So I don't think Jesus is trying to make a scientifically accurate statement here, but rather is trying to paint a picture of a bizarre miraculous occurrence. What this means, I can't say for sure, but I think most people have suggested that it's an illustration of how the teachings of a single man managed to grow into to world's largest religion.

As the SAB says, verse 35 is a misquote of Psalm 78, but I think it's just 78:2, not verse 3 as well. While it's a misquote, it's fairly close. The psalm says "dark sayings", but it's a translation of a word more often translated "riddles" meaning secrets or mysteries. The psalm doesn't say anything about "the foundation of the world" but does say "of old" using a Hebrew word meaning "of ancient time". (The Greek word translated "foundation" almost never appears in the N.T. without "of the world", for whatever that's worth.)

The parable in verses 47-50 provokes a couple questions from the SAB. Is anyone good? I'm going to go with "Yes" on this one, although it should be noted that "good" is a comparative term. The Isaiah verse really is about righteousness, an issue with a response I linked to above, while the Mark verse is an oddity that has something to do with (if I recall correctly) a belief that the Pharisees had about God. Has there ever been a just person? I think again, the answer is yes. I'm not sure what the deal is with the Ecclesiastes verse in this case. First of all, it seems to be describing not someone who is "just" but someone who is "righteous", which suggests a questionable translation (although that may open up a bigger can of worms). Secondly, I think that the book of Ecclesiastes is prone to hyperbole more than most books, and Solomon may be implying that, just or righteous, the sort of person he's describing is incredibly rare. In case it's not clear, I think the distinction between "righteous" and "just" is that the latter would describe someone who does the right thing while the latter describes someone who believes in doing the right thing. Such people are, in my opinion, not so rare as Solomon suggests.

Lastly, the SAB notes the absurdity of Jesus being largely rejected in his hometown. I don't think this is necessarily so absurd, as it may be true that someone who knew a famous person as a child might have a hard time fathoming their rise to fame. Jesus may have had a largely unremarkable childhood, seeing as virtually nothing of it is recorded in the Gospels. And so long as we're here, I would say regarding Mary being a lifelong virgin that while I don't believe it personally, I don't think it's an unreasonable stretch that these "brethren" may be half-brothers or cousins, and thus the Catholic stance on Mary's virginity may hold.

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.

This is the second death (Matthew 10)

So the first (substantive) issue that comes up in Matthew 10 is the matter of what the names of the apostles were. There are actually many minor issues here, as many of the apostles were known by more than one name, such as Peter a.k.a. Simon, but the SAB points out the most difficult one, this "Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus" fellow. Mark's Gospel refers to "Thaddeus" but the two times Luke refers to the apostles by name, he refers to "Judas the brother of James" which is never explained anywhere to be the same person. I think, however, that the fact that a lot of people in the New Testament have more than one name that they go by suggests that it's quite possibly what's going on here. Both Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus may have been nicknames of Judas, as both apparently mean something like "large-hearted".

Should the Gospel be preached to everyone? Well, I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that what is going on in this passage in particular is that at this time, Jesus isn't sending the Gospel outside of Israel, but that doesn't mean that it's never to be the case.

Did Jesus tell his apostles to go barefoot and without a staff? Once again, I have to hand it to the SAB for being so detail-oriented, as I doubt I would have ever noticed this oddity. I think it can be explained, though. In the matter of staves, I think what's being said here is much like what's being said about coats; it's not that they can't have a staff, but that they should refrain from bringing a spare. Going more out on a limb here, as I don't know first century customs regarding footwear, I think a distinction is being made between sandals and heavier footwear, that they can wear the former but not the latter. (I checked, and it is a different word in the Greek, at least.)

At the mention of the infamous ancient city, the SAB asks the question "What was Sodom's sin?" I don't think this question belongs here, but I'll address it nonetheless, as it's a good one. The reason I don't think it belongs is that I don't think that verse 15 or the parallel passage in Luke 10 actually say what Sodom's crime was but only hold the city up as a comparison. (The passage from Jeremiah 23 does likewise.) While homosexuality could possibly have been an issue, I don't see a lot of evidence for it. Yes, Ezekiel says they committed an "abomination", but the Hebrew word for "abomination" that Ezekiel uses shows up over 100 times in the O.T., and only once or twice is it associated with homosexuality, so that doesn't narrow it down much; I'd say it actually is more often associated with improper sacrificial practices than improper sexual practices anyway. No, I think that the passage in Ezekiel lists the real crimes of Sodom, but they are listed in a more general sense rather than a list of specific things.

The SAB puts a whole bunch of its category labels on verse 21, because yeah, it's talking about some pretty awful stuff. While I don't disagree that this is bad, I'm assuming that the SAB is trying to imply that Jesus wants this bad stuff or something, and I don't think that's the case. Intolerance, violence, and injustice are terrible things, but they happen because that's unfortunately just the way people are. The fact that Jesus knew these things would happen doesn't mean that he made them that way. When the next verse says "...he that endureth to the end shall be saved." I think the SAB is reading too much into it to say that this is like instructions on how to be saved. Rather I think it's saying that those who do not endure will not be saved, so take it as an encouragement rather than a sort of rule.

Verse 23 is an odd one, and I suppose it does sound a bit like it's talking about the timing of end of the world. I don't know that it is, though. For one thing, it may be talking about how the apostles in particular will not manage to preach in every city of Israel, although the Gospel may eventually be preached by others nonetheless. For another thing, there may be another meaning to "till the Son of man be come." I think the bigger issue in comparing it to Matthew 24:14 is that that verse says the Gospel would be preached to "all nations" which doesn't imply necessarily "all cities". As it happens, there are Christians in every one of the world's 200-odd countries (it's hard to say how many there are as it changes, and it's hard to say what counts as a country) but certainly not in every city, so the gospel has in a sense come to "all nations" while it very well may have never been preached in numerous cities of Israel.

The SAB asks if we should fear God, a question I addressed at length back here in what I think was one of my better posts. The SAB also asks whether or not Hell exists, which I'm certain I have not addressed. It's actually a difficult question, though, at least in the way that the SAB frames it. That is to say, I'm pretty well certain that the Bible teaches that Hell is a real place, but I will readily admit that it's a place of questionable nature. (I have some reflections on the nature of Hell in my other blog here.) There are those who, no doubt in part due to many of the verses in the second part of the linked page, believe that Hell is a place where the ungodly go after death to be destroyed rather than eternally punished as is the common understanding among mainstream Christians. It may be that some of this is a matter of a sort of poetic use of the term "death" as I've heard many say; when the Bible talks of the "death" of a soul, it may be referring to the eternal torment of Hell as a sort of death. I'm going to set that issue aside as a deeper bit of theology that I feel may be out of my scope and address the "everyone goes to heaven" section of the page (although it may be too deep as well, just shorter).

There is a doctrine that's part of strict Calvinism that suggests that when Jesus died for our sins, he didn't die for the sins of unbelievers, only those who would eventually come to faith. I think that 1John 2:2 suggests that this is not the case, but note that while that verse says that Jesus "is the propitiation...for the sins of the whole world" it does not say that the whole world will go to Heaven. Now when 1Timothy 4:10 says "...specially of those that believe", I think it's approaching the nature of the real truth. The metaphor that I've always gone with is that when Jesus died on the cross, it was like he signed a blank check to pay for the sins of each and every person in the world. The problem of faith is that a blank check is only worth something if you believe in it: everyone has this spiritual blank check, but are you going to sign the back and cash it out? I'm sure it sounds weird, but it works for me, and I hope it clarified a bit where my belief is anyway.

I'm not sure what the SAB is on about with sparrows (marked with the "science" icon), so I'm not sure whether I can address it. As the SAB says, God thinks human beings are worth much more than sparrows, and I'm inclined to agree. If there's scientific evidence that this is not so, I'd probably find it interesting.

I know that the SAB is interpreting verses 32-33 more strictly than I would, and I'm guessing that most Christians would also take this as more of a guideline than a strict rule. In particular, as is pointed out, Peter denied knowing Jesus at the time of his crucifixion, but later in life was a powerful, outspoken evangelist, so I don't think he lost his salvation over it.

Verses 34-37 have a lot of the same issues that verse 21 had, but there may be a few more things to say about these verses. As for whether Jesus is peaceful, it's a bit complicated, and I addressed that issue at the end of this post. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the meaning of verse 37 in particular, as it sounds pretty bad (although not as bad as some similar verses). Jesus is simply saying that in the end, our love of God should be our strongest love. Does that mean that we should be cruel to our family in any way? I don't believe so.

Most of the rest of the chapter is flowery poetic talk that I don't know I fully follow the meaning of so well, to be honest, although I can say that I addressed the question of whether there was ever a righteous person in this post.

But whom say ye that I am? (Matthew 9)

Matthew 9 begins with the story of Jesus healing a sick man. The SAB says that the man is healed by having his sins forgiven, but I don't think that's what the story is telling us. I think the healing and the forgiveness are supposed to be two separate acts. (I have no idea why this passage is marked as "injustice".) The forgiveness does bring up an issue, though. Apparently, this was considered blasphemous, as only God had the authority to forgive sins, so is Jesus God? Well, I'm going to take the position that Jesus is God, so I'm only going to address items in the "No" column of the linked page. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus does not expressly say that he is not God; I'll probably address that more fully when I get there. As for the rest, the confusion arises because of the oddity that is trinitarianism, an issue probably too big for me to tackle, but I suppose I'll have to at some point in the New Testament, so why not here?

Okay, so Christianity of course believes that there is one and only one God, but, as you may have heard, also believes that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which can sound like a form of tritheism. (It's actually my understanding that the LDS church in particular is a tritheistic church, but it's more complicated than that in their case.) What is going on, though, is that while God is a single being, He manifests Himself in three persons, each of which has a slightly different role. I was actually talking with an agnostic friend about this recently, and just because he'll be delighted that I used this analogy in the blog, I will: It's sort of like the TV show Doctor Who. If you're not familiar, the show is a British sci-fi action series that features the adventures of "The Doctor", a human-appearing space alien that has a ship known as the TARDIS that allows him to travel through Time And Relative Dimensions In Space. What's important for the analogy, though, is that about a dozen actors have played The Doctor in the main series. Now unlike James Bond, who has been played by about half a dozen actors, but is always supposed to be the same person, each new actor that plays The Doctor is supposed to be taking over when the previous one dies, as death is not permanent for those of The Doctor's race, but leads to a "regeneration" in which one gets a new body and actually a new personality. Thus each regeneration of The Doctor is, while still The Doctor, like a brand new person in many ways. Back to theology, the Father (more often referred to as "God" or "Lord" than the other two), Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit (who doesn't seem to have a personal name) are all God in the end, but each of them has his own personality and role to play in Christianity (although unlike in Doctor Who, they all exist simultaneously). In a manner that is hard for me to fully understand, there also seems to be something like a rank among them, with the Father being primary in a fashion that I don't know to ever be made completely clear.

Does God desire animal sacrifices? I covered that in Genesis 4.

Starting in verse 18, we get the story of Jairus' daughter, who was either dead or at least near death when her father asked Jesus to come and help her. Was she dead? This does seem to be another place where Matthew differs from the other Gospels, but I'm not sure it really matters since I've always chosen to take Jesus at his word in verse 24 that she was never dead at all. Thus the question that the SAB asks in that verse is not an issue here, at least. (It will be eventually, of course.)

In the middle of the story is the story of a woman who was healed on the way to Jairus' house. I don't think that Jesus is saying that "medical science is unnecessary", but that there is some sort of power to be found in having faith in Jesus in addition to medicine. This may very well be just a matter of the healing power of a positive attitude for all I know; I've certainly heard it said that health is in many ways in the mind as well as in the body, and for some sorts of sickness, I don't doubt it. On the other hand, Jesus proceeds to go and heal two blind men and a mute possessed by a devil. I think both of these are undoubtedly a matter of supernatural power on the part of Jesus. No, I don't think the Bible is saying it's generally the case that a person who is mute must be possessed, only that it was the case here.

Send us into the swine (Matthew 8)

The first issue raised in Matthew 8 is the question of whether the centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant came directly to Jesus, or sent messengers. While of course it could be possible that these are two different centurions, I think it's more likely that Matthew left some details out of the story. Note that in both stories, the centurion tells Jesus not to come to his house, so not coming in person makes some sense. The SAB points out that this would have been a good opportunity for Jesus to make a statement condemning slavery, but Jesus says nothing about this guy owning a slave. While I touched on this subject before, that was essentially discussing Israelite slavery, and this guy is a gentile, so I have little reason to assume that this is the same sort of arrangement. If I were to address the issue of slavery in the New Testament, I'd have to do some research, I think, but no, Jesus never comes out expressly against slavery as far as I'm aware.

The SAB makes a side-note on this story suggesting that perhaps the centurion and his servant were a gay couple. I find this difficult to fathom. Yes, I think in that day homosexuality may have been considered acceptable in Roman society, but what sort of couple would they have been if one was the owner of another? No, I think homosexuality is another issue that Jesus never directly addresses, even by silent assent.

In verse 10, we are told that Jesus was "astonished" and the SAB takes the opportunity to ask "Did Jesus know everything?" First of all, I think that Jesus expressing an emotion that is often linked with being surprised does not immediately mean that Jesus didn't know something, but I'll set that aside, because it's my view that Jesus, in the time that he walked the earth in human form, was not omniscient. The two quoted verses from the book of John aren't Jesus claiming to know everything, but his followers making that claim. The real nail in the coffin of Jesus having omniscience is Mark 13:32, in which Jesus admits there is at least one thing that he does not know. Now how much Jesus does know is worth questioning, and indeed, he does seem to know quite a bit, but he does not know everything.

Verse 12 is another odd one, and for more than just the reason the SAB notes. Yes, I'll agree with the interpretation that "the children of the kingdom" most likely refers to Jews, but that doesn't mean that all Jews will fail to be saved, I think that the point here is that despite the fact that the nation of Israel is the "chosen people", there will be many non-Jews in heaven and many Jews in hell. (I'm not really convinced that Jesus is even saying the the centurion is saved, only that he has an impressive level of faith.) The thing that I find interesting that's not noted is yet another use of the phrase "the children of..." that clouds the picture of what standing various people have before God, as discussed in a few of the recent chapters.

In verses 14-15, there is mention of Peter's mother-in-law being healed. The SAB asks, no doubt semi-sarcastically, whether this implies that the first Pope was married. Yes, Peter did appear to be married, and I don't know the full details, but it's my understanding that requiring clergy of the Catholic church to be celibate is a development more recent than the first century. I don't know if this goes for the Pope also, or whether the Catholic church thus has some explanation of this passage because of that issue; you'd probably have to ask a Catholic, not an ex-Jewish baptist like me. (The SAB marks this healing and the following casting out of devils as absurd; I'm not generally going to address miracles marked as absurdity, I think, but let them stand as miracles.)

Verses 21-22 have a man who wants to follow Jesus, but says "suffer me first to go and bury my father." I think the SAB is misunderstanding what the guy is asking here; it's always been my understanding that this was his way of saying, "I don't think my father would approve of me following you, so can I wait until he's passed away?" Jesus' response is not to literally suggest that dead people should bury each other, but that if his father can't handle Jesus, then he should be left behind. (This could still perhaps take all the tags the SAB gives it, but the meaning is not quite what it's being taken as.)

The story in verses 23-27 is another miracle, and I think the real point of the miracle, if anything, is what it says in the last verse: that even the weather obeys Jesus' commands.

The last story in this chapter is an odd one about Jesus casting out some demons (or perhaps one very strange, powerful one). For reasons unknown, when Mark and Luke tell this story, they say there's only one demon-possessed man, while Matthew puts it at two. I have no idea why the difference in number, and it seems to be a big difference; I mean, who has a hard time counting to two? (Matthew does use different names in his telling of the story, so it could possibly be a different event, but there's enough detail in common to make this improbable.) Anyway, this is an interesting story for numerous reasons. The demons immediately know who Jesus is, and they refer to some time in the future that Jesus is going to torment them. Weird stuff. Note that in other versions of the story, Jesus finds out that the devil(s) is named "Legion", and in all the stories, they are sent into a herd of pigs. Some have suggested that this story is symbolic of the Roman occupation, which is possible, but I'm not real keen on that interpretation. It is odd to note that someone in a Jewish city would be keeping a herd of pigs, seeing as they're unclean animals. I find it odd that people who dislike this story object to the drowning of the pigs; I guess while I'm thinking it's good that the demons were driven out at all, these people are wondering if it could have been done more cleanly. Certainly the people of the nearby town seem to think so, as they ask Jesus to leave.