And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked (Acts 26)

Acts chapter 26 is pretty much all another speech by Paul, and in it, we're going to hear about his conversion on the road to Damascus for the third time. Sometimes I wonder if the SAB should have a tag for "repetitive stuff" because the Bible definitely has a tendency towards repetition. Jews actually say that if something is repeated in the Law, that means it's extra important. I don't know if anyone says that about the New Testament, and I don't know why Paul's conversion would be considered particularly important, but here it is anyway.

Paul expresses that he's glad to give testimony before Agrippa, because he knows Agrippa is familiar with Jewish custom, and (as he says in verse 26 towards the end of his speech) he knows something about Jesus and the following he created. Paul talks about his background as a Pharisee and how he came to be one of the chief persecutors of the Christians, until the day he went to Damascus, where he had his run-in with Jesus. (I answered all supposed contradictions in that story in Acts chapter nine where it happened.) He tells that ever since then, he has been traveling around spreading the gospel, and it's for that reason that the Jews in Jerusalem are accusing him, even though he has preached nothing but what is talked about in the Hebrew Scriptures. (I answered whether death is final in Joshua chapter 23 where the answer was complicated. I answered whether Jesus was first to rise from the dead in 1Samuel chapter 28, which was also complicated, but much less so.)

Festus shouts out that Paul has gone crazy, which always seems to happen when Paul gets to the part about rising from the dead (not specifically Festus, but throughout Acts, people listening to Paul always seem to lose it at that point). Paul says he's not crazy, but speaking the truth, and he expects Agrippa knows enough to know that there is something to what he's saying. He asks Agrippa if he believes in the prophets, and Agrippa replies that he's actually almost persuaded to convert. Paul says that he wishes that everyone who hears him talk would convert. Agrippa and Festus turn aside to talk, and say that they don't believe Paul has done anything wrong, but since he has appealed to Caesar, he must go to Rome in chains.

They inclosed a great multitude of fishes (John 21)

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus: Do you love me more than anyone?

Peter: You know I like you.

J: Do you love me?

P: You know I like you.

J: Do you like me?

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

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

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

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

He appeared first to Mary Magdalene (John 20)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead (John 11)

John chapter eleven is pretty much the turning point of John's gospel. Jesus does another miracle, and it's the biggest one, and after this it's just a countdown to Jesus's crucifixion.

Lazarus is sick, very sick, and his sisters, Martha and Mary, send a message to Jesus, knowing that Jesus is a healer. The Bible gives a side note that Mary is the one who anointed Jesus's feet, which is a scene we're going to see later in John's gospel. The SAB gives links to other anointing stories in the gospels, but I personally don't believe they are all the same story, because the details are off just enough. I'll save that for the actual story, though. The SAB links to an article discussing the possibility that Jesus was gay. I'm sure most Christians would dismiss the idea out of hand, but I myself have often wondered what Jesus's sexual orientation was. I don't believe Jesus ever actually had sex, but he was human, and the Bible says in Hebrews 4:15

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

So I feel like Jesus was not asexual, just celibate.

The SAB puts a footnote on verse 15, but in the footnote, it quotes verse four; I'm not sure if this is an error, because these two verses are definitely related matter. Jesus says Lazarus is not going to die, which I'm surprised the SAB doesn't mark as Jesus lying, because I feel that you can't skirt it here; Jesus lied about Lazarus. Jesus waits two days to go to Lazarus, apparently so that Lazarus will be very dead. When he finally sets out with his disciples, he informs them that Lazarus is dead.

The question of "Must everyone die?" was talked about most recently in John chapter eight. It's actually very interesting that Martha talks about "the resurrection at the last day" because it shows that while Old Testament Jews didn't have much of an idea of an afterlife, there is some theology about it that's more sophisticated in the first century. However, Jesus tells her he's here to grant something else.

John 11:35 is the shortest verse in the Bible, but a profound one; "Jesus wept." Jesus is not weeping for Lazarus, clearly, because he knows that situation is going to be cleared up in a moment. Jesus is weeping in commiseration with his friends who are in pain, because he feels their pain. Jesus feels for people, and isn't afraid to show his emotions. I feel that this is another way that people should strive to be like Jesus.

Jesus tells them to roll away the stone from the cave where Lazarus's body lay, and proceeds to pray. Should Christians pray in public? This is a good question, as Jesus does seem to say no to this practice in Matthew six. Yet here in our story, not only does Jesus pray publicly, but arguably for the purpose of showing off, which seems to be the point of the Matthew passage. I think the very specific point Jesus was making in Matthew was that there are people who pray in public because they want people to see how religious they are, when prayer should be about making a personal connection with God. I don't think what Jesus says in Matthew is intended to be a command so much as a guideline: prayer is not for showing off. While here in our passage, as I said, you could argue Jesus is showing off, it's not to make himself look better, but to reinforce the faith of the people in his audience. So, should Christians pray in public? Only if their motives are selfless in doing so.

Jesus calls Lazarus from the grave, and he comes out. Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? The SAB is right that there were certainly people who came back from the dead before Jesus. The issue here is that the way in which Jesus rose from the dead was different. All of these people who came back from the dead listed on the page (except Samuel, who was just a spirit) were essentially revived; that is, they came back to being the live person that they were before. Jesus was resurrected, which, while the dictionary makes no particular distinction, is different in the Bible. Jesus came back, but not the same; he was in a glorified body which allowed him to be both physical and spiritual at the same time. Supposedly, this is what will happen to every believer in Jesus after they die, which is why 1Corinthians 15:20 talks about Jesus that way; Jesus's resurrection is the proof of more resurrection to come.

So the chapter ends with the Pharisees hearing about Jesus's miracle, and they are upset because they're worried that Jesus will become too popular and the Romans will have to put down a rebellion, ruining the way things are in Palestine. The high priest, Caiaphas, says not to worry, because they can see to it that Jesus dies to save everyone else, and apparently, while what he meant was that they would get Jesus out of the way, the Bible tells us that unknowingly he is being prophetic. Indeed, Jesus dies to save not just the nation, but the world. The Pharisees hatch a plot to have Jesus killed.

Drink thy wine with a merry heart (John 2)

John chapter two opens with a marriage on "the third day". The third day of what, however? Contrary to what the SAB implies this is not the third day after Jesus's baptism, but the third day after John the Baptist points out Jesus to his disciples, describing what happened at his baptism.

Is it OK to drink alcohol? What the Bible says about alcohol The Bible says a lot of things about alcohol; most of it can be summed up with: alcohol is okay, but try not to get so drunk you do something to embarrass yourself. Let's talk about some of the things that need explanation. Yes, people who have taken the Nazarite vow are instructed to (among other things) abstain from wine, and in fact grapes as well. Samson was a Nazarite from birth, and for some reason, God commanded his mother not to have grapes or wine while she was pregnant; of course, we know it's not good to have alcohol when pregnant anyway. Many people have suggested that John the Baptist was a Nazarite; the description of him in the Gospels is consistent with this, including the similar announcement of his impending birth to Samson's. I don't think Isaiah 28 is saying priests and prophets can't drink, but once again, when you get drunk, you often make bad choices. I think the reason Daniel didn't drink wine was the same reason he didn't eat meat; he was worried about his food being kosher in a pagan land. I think what's going on in Lamentations 4:21 is actually what the footnote there says. In 1Timothy 5:23, Paul is giving a bit of personal advice to Timothy, which I don't think is meant to be a general commandment. Haggai 2:11-14 is a passage talking about holy things and unclean things in which it's suggested that holy thing (such as a piece of meat from an offering) doesn't transfer its holiness to things it touches, but unclean things (such as a dead body) do spread their uncleanness to things they touch. The point of the passage is the general uncleanness of the nation of Israel, and is not really making any point about alcohol. I'm not sure what point the SAB is making about different "drink offerings" in the book of Numbers; it seems that different offerings often include some amount of wine, and it depends on the offering. It's interesting that the Israelites were commanded to not drink wine when they went to the Tabernacle/Temple, but many offerings there included wine; I think this indicates that wine is a good thing in general, but when you're in worship, you should be sober.

I think that covers drinking, but perhaps I should say a word about the phrase "drunk with blood", since Steve Wells is fascinated by it. This is a fairly common phrase (although there are certainly more common ones), but it should be noted that it's certainly not meant to be literal. Throughout the Bible, and in both Jewish and Christian cultures, there are a lot of instances of wine being used as a symbol for blood. With this symbolism, it apparently works both ways, as this phrase demonstrates. Yeah, it's violent imagery, and the parts of the Bible where it appears are violent, or at least describing violence, but since (as Wells notes in his blog) it's not literal, it doesn't really belong in this discussion.

How should parents be treated? I think generally, parents should be treated with respect, but there are certainly exceptions. I don't know that all of the verses in the bottom part of this page are meant to be disrespectful, I certainly don't think it's the case for the verse here in John; after all, Jesus did take care of the wine issue that his mother brought to his attention. Matthew 23:9 is an interesting one, and I've met Christians who actually do take this literally and don't call their father "father". I don't think that's what Jesus meant, though; I think he meant that you shouldn't use the term for anyone other than God and your actual literal father. Luke 9:59-60 is often misunderstood; this man's father is not dead, he's implying that his father won't approve of him following Jesus, so he wants to wait until his father dies. Luke 14:26 is hyperbole; Jesus says in that list of things to "hate" that one should hate "his own life also" which nobody actually does. Jesus is saying you should love God so much that in comparison, your other loves should seem like hate. The Luke 2 passage is not disrespectful; Jesus's earthly parents knew that his actual father was God, and since he was about to come of age, it made sense he would be at the Temple being "about my Father's business." I would say the last passage listed on that page is the only one that's arguably disrespectful, but really Jesus is making a point that to him, all the people that follow him are his family.

When did Jesus's temple tantrum occur? It's possible that John got mixed up, since he wrote his Gospel about 60 years after the events, and it's possible as I mentioned before that John isn't being chronological in his storytelling, although that's doubtful here. The explanation I personally believe is one I've heard suggested by a few people: Jesus actually had two "Temple tantrums", one at the beginning of his ministry and another at the end. As for the supposed discrepancy between Luke's telling and Matthew and Mark's, I don't think there is any reason to assume that, just because Luke fails to specify the length of time between the triumphal entry and the clearing of the Temple, one must have immediately followed the other.

Who raised Jesus from the dead? There is no contradiction here. Trinitarianism: God raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus is God, the Holy Ghost is God. It's all the same here.

Did Jesus say, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"? As the question is worded, the answer is "yes"; no problem. Note that on the supposed contradiction page, the false witnesses are misquoting Jesus, saying that he said he personally would destroy the Temple, which is not what he said at all. The SAB also notes on this passage a problem with Jehovah's Witness theology, which claims that the risen Jesus was a spirit and not a physical body. I agree, and would say there are plenty of other scriptures that make this claim problematic; I bet the SAB has caught all of them.

Until the day in which he was taken up (Luke 24)

Luke 24 is a big one, but what the heck, let's do it all in one big post, shall we?

Was the tomb opened or closed? Were the men (or angels) inside or outside? Were the men or angels sitting or standing? Whom did the women see? Okay, much of the confusion arising from these questions is due to the fact that the verses being cited are describing different events. The tomb was opened; the passage in Matthew describing the angel rolling away the stone is an event that happened before any of the women arrived, and involved the only angel spotted outside of the tomb. When the women looked into the tomb, they saw two angels who looked like men, and thus are described as such in some of the accounts. It's not clear why Mark's gospel says there was only one. At various times they were sitting and standing, notably when Mary Magdalene looks into the tomb, this is much later in the day as she, by herself, had run off to fetch Peter and John, and at the point she examines the tomb more closely, the other women have gone on their way and some time has passed.

Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection? Yes, but they apparently didn't fully understand it.

Did the women immediately tell the disciples? I believe they did; when it says in Mark's gospel that they told no man, it may mean that they told nobody until they found the disciples. (Mark's gospel is a strange one, as it's believed by many scholars to have ended with verse 8 originally, and someone else edited in the rest later. So the ending there is weird and a little disjointed.)

How many women came? The Bible is far from clear on this, but I think part of the confusion is due to the complexity of the story. It's my belief that there may have been more than one group of women who came to the tomb, as well as more than one group who left separately. In particular, Mary Magdalene was the first woman to come to the tomb, and while she may not have come alone, she did leave alone to run to Peter and John. It would seem that the other women stuck around to see the angels and get instructions, and later caught up with Mary as she was talking to Peter and John. Whoever was with Peter and John seemed either confused and/or skeptical about what they were hearing, but Peter and John went to the tomb to check things out.

To whom did Jesus first appear? Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene; the passages given on that page are describing other, later events. I believe the event that is described in Matthew 28:9 happens after Mary Magdalene becomes separated from the rest of the women. The story here in Luke in which he travels with two disciples clearly takes place long after Peter and John traveled to the tomb (see v. 24), which was around the time that Jesus appeared to M.M. The verse in 1Corinthians makes no claim of who saw Jesus first.

Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus? Most of these verses are taken out of context. I already talked about the Matthew verse; if you read a few more verses into the John account, you find that Mary eventually recognizes Jesus; the guys in Luke had only heard the first part of the story, not how Mary had seen Jesus.

Is it OK to call someone a fool? The verse in Matthew 5 that this refers to does not say that you can't call someone a fool, but rather points out that if you start name-calling in anger, you're spiritually endangering yourself.

How many disciples did Jesus appear to in his first post resurrection appearance? The problem with these verses, especially the one in 1Corinthians, is that "the twelve" was sort of a shortcut way of saying "the apostles" even though in many latter cases it excluded Judas Iscariot, similarly "the eleven" is used to refer to the apostles less Judas, and may have been used to refer to them even if one of them, namely Thomas, happened to be missing. The answer is ten.

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples? Note that the Matthew verse says "where Jesus had appointed them", suggesting that this was not the first meeting they'd had with him.

Did the eleven disciples believe the two men? I think they didn't believe at first until more reports started coming in of sightings of Jesus.

Were the disciples frightened or gladdened when they saw Jesus? I think they were afraid at first, and then glad. Note that if you read the verses leading up to the verse quoted from John, it says that they were glad after he spoke with them and showed them his wounds.

Was it OK to touch the risen Jesus? It's not really clear what it is that Jesus is telling Mary in John 20:17, because he does seem to be rather generous with other people who want to touch him in other situations. Different Greek verbs are used for touching in all of these verses, which might lend a hint, but I'm not sure what that might be. I suspect that while many people were merely touching Jesus, Mary may have been clinging to him rather strongly, and Jesus was reminding her that she couldn't keep him. That's my guess anyway. Does God have a body? God the Father has no body, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have an appearance.

The SAB says "Jesus claims that his suffering and death were a fulfillment of prophecy. But there is no such prophecy in the Old Testament." There certainly is no specific place in the O.T. that says right out that the Messiah has to suffer and die, but that doesn't mean that there are no passages that are prophetic of this concept. Two that come to mind are Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.

Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go after his resurrection? It would seem that he told them to go to two places, first to go to Galilee where they would see him on a mountaintop, and then to go wait in Jerusalem for Pentecost.

When did Jesus ascend into heaven? First of all, he may very well have ascended into heaven more than once. However his final ascension was forty days after his resurrection.I think the real problem verse is the one at the end of Luke. As the SAB itself points out, the phrase "and carried up into heaven" may not have been in the original manuscript, but more important than that, I don't think we are meant to take the events of Luke 24 to have all occurred on a single day.

Thy dead men shall live (Luke 20)

The Parable in the early part of Luke 20 is once again not a parable that Jesus precedes with "The Kingdom of God is like..." but I think the parallels in this case are too obvious to not assume that the landlord in the parable is representative of God, if only because he sends his son who is killed. Now while the SAB calls the story violent, and I can see that, the injustice label is a little more questionable. These guys who are taking his property have also killed his son, so it's not that surprising that the landlord reacts with violence.

The little story in verses 22-25 are not universally recognized to have the meaning that the SAB appoints to them, but I happen to be in agreement. I think Jesus is definitely saying that people should pay their taxes, and it's not a great stretch to suppose he's suggesting a separation of church and state. (Note that Old Testament laws stated that a man could be a king or a priest, but not both.)

The argument Jesus has with the Sadducees in verses 27-38 is an interesting one, as the Sadducees didn't believe in life after death, and they were trying to set out a ridiculous scenario to confuse Jesus. The general understanding of Jesus' reply is that in the afterlife, there won't be marriage, so the question is meaningless. Is death final? I'm sure I've answered this many times, but no, death is not final, in the sense that when someone dies, they move on to another stage of existence. The SAB suggests jokingly that "Dead people have no God" but it's more proper to note that there's a certain sense in which there are no truly dead people, as their souls last eternally.

Jesus' little speech in verses 41 to 44 is a bit cryptic, as he seems to be claiming that he's not the son of David, even though that's a title he has willingly been referred to in the past. I'm not sure what his point is supposed to be unless perhaps it has something to do with the virgin birth which honestly is not spoken of much in the gospels.

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.

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.)

Tell me, what shall thy wages be? (Matthew 20)

Chapter 20 opens with another very strange parable, as the SAB puts it, "The parable of the unfair, lying employer." Rather than try to describe it, I'll let you read it yourself. A note on the face of the parable's content that I think is needed is that "a penny" is not a direct translation (it was actually a denarius, a coin worth ten times another smaller Roman coin, and commonly paid for a days wages), and the agreed wage was reasonable, or else the first group certainly wouldn't have signed on. The latter groups of workers are told "whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive." Now in the matter of unfairness, I can certainly see where the argument comes from: if you've got groups of people working 12, 9, 6, 3, and 1 hours, and you pay them all the same, it does seem unfair, I'll grant. But lying? Look, the first group agreed to work for a penny, so there's no lying there. If all the other groups agreed to work for "whatever is right" then that's subject to opinion, namely the opinion of the owner of the vineyard. The accusation of lying seems like quite a stretch to me.

So what about the unfairness, and the meaning of the parable? As I've said before, I can only guess, but it's always seemed to me that this parable is talking about the gift of salvation, and how even if you spent your whole life going to church and being a good person, spreading the Gospel, you get just as much salvation as someone with a deathbed confession of faith who goofed off their whole life. The SAB asks what the meaning of verse 15 is, and I think I know this one; "Is thine eye evil because I am good?" is, I believe, supposed to mean "Are you giving me such a dirty look just because I've decided to be generous?"

Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection? Yes he did, but the fact that they failed to understand, as John 20:9 points out, is a separate matter.

When we are told the story of the mother of James and John asking for seats of honor for her sons in the coming kingdom, the SAB points out that the parallel passage in Mark doesn't mention the mother. I figure that this could be a matter of Mark not noticing (or not mentioning) the mother being there, and in the real story, it wasn't her personally who asked, but rather that she goaded her sons into asking. The SAB may not agree, but that makes both versions work out fine in my estimation.

How much power did Jesus have? This is a good question, and I think I addressed part of this previously, but there's a special case here in this chapter. As I think I mentioned before, the passage in Mark 6 isn't about Jesus having a lack of power, but having a lack of opportunity to show it. In Matthew 20:23, the issue is not so much that Jesus can't choose, but that he's allowing that choice to be given over to the authority of God the Father.

The SAB asks "Was Jesus a ransom for many or a ransom for all?" to which I'm going to respond that this is just splitting hairs. If Jesus is a ransom for all, doesn't it logically follow that he was a ransom for many? Maybe I'm missing something here. The SAB further asks "Who (or what) is the ransom for the righteous?" and pulls up some confusing verses. Honestly, the really confusing verses are the ones from the book of Proverbs, and the Hebrew term used there seems to really mean "ransom" (it has other meanings, but none of them seem like they would apply) so I'm not sure what is really meant there. One possible interpretation, although I think it might be a stretch, is the thought that on the cross, Jesus was transformed into our wickedness in order that we would be deemed righteous in his stead, thus making Proverbs 21:18 into a sort of explanation of Jesus's substitutionary sacrifice. I've really no idea at all what to make of Proverbs 13:8.

Finishing out the chapter, we have the story of two blind men sitting by the road near Jericho that Jesus healed. The SAB points out some discrepancies between some similar stories in the other Gospels and claims them to be contradictions. Maybe they are, but the way they could be contradictions is manifold. Perhaps there were two blind men, but Mark and Luke only remembered one. Perhaps there was one blind man coming in, and another going out. Why is it that Mark knows the name of the blind man, but he/they were anonymous in the other stories? In the end, I don't know what's going on here. Perhaps one or more of the authors got their stories wrong. Perhaps this isn't different tellings of the same story, but is two or three different incidents that happened in about the same place. Your guess is as good as mine.

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.

So man lieth down, and riseth not (Joshua 23)

In Joshua 23, apparently the fighting is over, and Joshua calls the tribes together to give them a speech. The main purpose of the speech seems to be pretty plain: he's giving a review of what the fighting was all about. He reminds them of their victories (and not their failures, perhaps hypocritical, but I'd like to think he was just aiming for a positive note) and admonishes them to stay faithful to God and the law that was given to them by Moses.

The SAB notes that verse ten is both absurd and unjust. I don't know if I've said it before, but sometimes I don't understand such a juxtaposition: how can something be both at the same time? Absurd seems to me to imply that it's just not going to happen, but if it's not happening, how is it unjust? Anyway, I don't think it goes against justice or practicality to have a righteous few overpower an unrighteous multitude. Aside from the Biblical example of Gideon, who defeated 120,000 Midianites with an army of 300 (not 1,000 to one, but 400 to one; still impressive), America has a police force that is about one in 400, and they do manage. Still, I think it's more than likely that we're talking hyperbole here. "One man of you shall chase a thousand" sounds a lot cooler than "One man of you shall chase a lot more than one." If the unjust part is that God is on their side, consider that Joshua is telling them this as a conditional thing. Too many people, especially today, are willing to go to battle in the belief that God is on their side. God doesn't take sides, the best you can do is to join God's side.

The second point brought up by the SAB is a real meaty one, perhaps one of the best questions I've come across yet in the SAB. Is death final? This is a key point in understanding what the Bible teaches, and a difficult one to deal with because admittedly, there truly is contradictory accounting of this matter to be found in the Bible. Yes, this is one of the biggest issues in the Bible that I will readily admit has contradiction behind it, and won't claim to not exist. The real manner in which one addresses this contradiction is not to ignore it, but analyze what's really going on here, as this is a key question that most religions ask.

One very notable thing that most people realize without having to delve too deeply is that the majority of scripture that talks about the afterlife is found in the New Testament, not the Old. Even the earliest citations given by the SAB in the "No" column are really not addressing the issue of an afterlife or "resurrection", but the issue of coming back from the dead or "revivication". Everyone today knows that the latter is a possibility. Most of us in fact probably know someone who was temporarily dead and came back to life after CPR or application of a defibrillator. When it comes to the concept of an afterlife, the first very solid mention of such a thing is probably Daniel 12:2, where the phrase "everlasting life" is used. There are actually some who will tell you that only Christians have the promise of "everlasting life", and Jews just have an outdated moral system that was only created as a foundation on which to build Christianity, but I think that's a seriously flawed theological position. I'm not sure I even fully buy the slightly less offensive position some have that Judaism is just slightly lesser and was meant to come to full understanding with the coming of Christ. No, even as a Christian who believes that full revelation did not come until the advent of Christ, I don't believe that Judaism was in any way inferior; after all, God invented it, didn't He? One way or another, I do believe God gives all people, in one way or another, a path to salvation and everlasting life. This certainly includes God's Chosen.

So why does the general Old Testament view of death seem to be at odds with the Christian one? First of all, I'd like to say that in many places, there can be a danger of overstating the case. In our Joshua passage, I think there is too much being read into Joshua's statement. When Joshua says, "This day I am going the way of all the earth," does it truly imply that Joshua believed there was no afterlife? After all, whether there is an afterlife or not, the statement is true, and it lines up fine with the New Testament view of death which, although not thinking it final, agrees that all living things die. Also, one should note that even with consideration of the afterlife in the mix, death is still final in a sense. Even though Christians look forward to a resurrection, there is understanding that once a person has passed from this life to the next, there is a true dividing point, and there is no natural method of turning back. The Christian who dies will leave their family with an understanding that they will be reunited in Heaven, but most assuredly not on this earth.

More problematic are verses like the one in Psalm 6, which claim that once a person is dead, there is no more knowledge, and no more chance of praising God. While the passages quoted from Job are more like the Joshua passage, and merely state the fact that death is inevitable, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Isaiah passages have a lot more to to say about the nature of a person's awareness being snuffed out after life has passed. It's really quite likely that many if not all of these passages are truly contradictory to the point of view of there being an afterlife. It's a difficult thing to deal with that not necessarily everything that is said in the Bible has the same force of truth behind it. As I have said before, and will revisit in my next post, Stephen gave a farewell speech in the book of Acts that is full of technical errors. I don't think everyone expects that every person who ever spoke in the Bible spoke without error. (In fact, the first instance of someone misquoting information is back in Genesis 3!) While Stephen makes factual errors and/or takes certain liberties in his storytelling, the Psalmists may make errors and/or take some poetic license. I personally find it more than a little shaky when somebody bases a doctrine on a verse in the Psalms. For instance, David wrote Psalm 6, which suggests that he doesn't believe in an afterlife. At the same time, David says of his dead child in 2Samuel 12:23, "I shall go to him," prompting some to claim that the Bible is saying here that all children go to Heaven. While I believe this to be true, I don't base a doctrine on an offhand remark by David, especially when he's not consistent in this matter.

So, to sum up, I do think this is a contradiction. It is however a contradiction only in that not every person who follows God in the Bible has uniformity in their belief in the nature of the afterlife. For the definitive answer, I look to the words of Jesus, which seem to me to point to a definitive "Yes, there is an afterlife."