This is an attempt to document an unbiased view of the major points presented by Jesus in the four gospels, i.e., what he had to say about various theological and ethical topics. Not being a historian or literary scholar, I will limit the study primarily to what is there for all to see in the four gospels, without undue speculation regarding whether Jesus really said it or whether the author of the gospel put words in his mouth later. For all practical purposes, the four gospels plus a few non-canonical Gnostic and Apocryphal texts are all we really have about what Jesus presumably said. Because much of the material in the non-canonical texts is ludicrous, this analysis will include only the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Primary source is George Lamsa’s Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text, which is a translation from the Peshitta, a Syriac (Aramaic) text written in the language that Jesus probably) spoke. Secondary source is The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Oxford Annotated Edition (RSV).

The Bible is not infallible, that is, free of all error, not even the four gospels representing the words of Jesus himself. If fundamentalists desire to challenge this assumption, several detailed contradictions in scriptural testimony can be pointed out very easily. Does this mean that scripture cannot be trusted to be basically accurate? Not at all. To assume that little in scripture is accurate would make this entire endeavor a waste of time. If most of it is wrong, why bother looking at it in detail? One operating assumption here is that the content of the four gospels, especially the words attributed to Jesus, are basically correct. Can this assumption be proven true beyond the shadow of a doubt right now on planet earth? No, but it cannot be proven false either. Scholars have been arguing this point for centuries, and I will not attempt to assert my non-authority on the issue either way. Where does this leave us? The four gospels may or may not be basically authentic records of the teachings of Jesus. Since they MIGHT BE authentic and since they contain claims by Jesus that he was the Son of God, therefore, it behooves us to take these writings seriously. Due to the fact that no scholar or historian has been able to convince me otherwise, I am working on the assumption that the four gospels are essentially authentic, probably colored somewhat by viewpoint, tradition, and human imperfection, but mostly true.

Although the following is certainly subject to exception, the premise will be that if Jesus pointed something out lots of times, there is a high probability that he really said it. If a point is made only in one place, its authenticity is open to question. I cannot prove this assumption to be true, but what other reasonable alternative is there? Likewise, if something is stated in all four gospels, truth probability is very high but only one gospel’s witness is more open to question. This is not absolute: One gospel alone could be correct about something and all four could be wrong about something. Nonetheless, there is some truth in numbers, not all, but some.

If Jesus said it, is it true? Not attempting to offer proof, simply be advised that this writer has not the guts nor the will to disagree with Jesus, even if totally confused about something he said. Judgment of truth will be left to the reader.

What I did was to go through the four gospels and underline anything Jesus said that expressed an idea, belief, teaching, etc. Not included are incidental comments by Jesus and statements by the author of the book. Then, with no preconceived outline, I went back through all of the underlined material and started dividing Jesus’ statements into subject areas. I added subject areas as I went along, trying to fit things into existing areas where possible, but starting a new page of notes for a new subject far more times than I anticipated at the beginning. I ended up with almost 50 major topics, averaging about 3 sub-topics each. I claim no perfection. I’m sure I inadvertently omitted a few sayings and perhaps missed a few points from a few parables I don’t quite understand. Nonetheless, the analysis is thorough enough to give us a macro view of what Jesus was most concerned about, or at least what writers of scripture quoted him about most often.

When the same passage of scripture appeared in more than one gospel, I counted it each time. For example, "Render unto Caesar" gets 3 because the same passage is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

The big winner of the numbers game is the kingdom of God and/or Heaven, depending on which book is cited. Including all the references to the end time or end of the world (which might not be the same as the kingdom of God), I found 132 separate references in all. There were 70 references to the kingdom, 40 to the end time, and 22 about possible relations between the two. The numbers do not add up because some of the references to the end time do not seem to refer to the kingdom, and vice versa. Other major topics were faith and fear (mostly faith) with 61, Jesus’ relation to God with 83, sacrifice/bear cross/follow Jesus with 50, Jesus’ prophecy of his own death and/or resurrection with 40, and punishment/hell/Gehenna with 43. Other significant topics were Mosaic law (22), justice/judgment (18), God’s will (17), hearing the word of God (21), good works/feeding poor (26), and forgiveness (21). Other topics had 15 to 20 references. The entire numbers breakdown is outlined below by topic and sub-topic.

Early in his ministry, there are several instances where Jesus tells people not to tell anyone that he is the Christ or something similar (Mk 8:26, Mt 9:30, and Mt 16:20).

In John, there are at least three times where he says that his time or turn has not yet come (2:4, 7:6, and 7:8). He did not fly down from heaven with the solution to all the world’s problems under his arm. He was born, grew up, and was human just like the rest of us. For whatever reasons, his time, probably referring to his crucifixion, had not yet come.

Due to the facts that many of these references are imbedded in material covered elsewhere in this analysis and that I didn’t count them all, there are doubtless quite a few more instances than the thirteen I caught where Jesus speaks of fulfilling scripture, namely prophecy of Isaiah and others in Jewish tradition.

At least ten cases occurred where Jesus indicated that something happened or would happen so that prophetic scripture might be fulfilled (Mk 14:49, Mt 26:31, Mt 26:54, Lk 18:31, Lk 22:37,

Jn 10:34-37, Jn 13:18, Jn 17:12, Jn 18:8-9, and Jn 19:28-30 (on the cross). There are also three related references to scripture: In Mt 22:29, he indicates that the Sadducees do not understand the scriptures; in Jn 5:39, he indicates that the scriptures testify concerning him; and in Lk 13:33-35, there is a general reference to scriptural prophecy concerning Jerusalem.

What is not clear in the ten or more instances where Jesus talked about fulfilling of scripture is whether he is really saying that he foretold the future like a magical soothsayer (popular view) or whether Jesus intentionally did things in such a fashion to cause scripture to come true. In Lk 22:37, he says that "what is written must be fulfilled in me ...", almost as if he were planning to fulfill the scripture rather than foretelling it. Another possibility is that he foretold the future by common sense rather than magical powers: Certain things were probably becoming more obvious all the time, not the least of which was his own death-to-be. It is also possible that all three are correct: Foretelling via common sense, foretelling via magic (or whatever fundamentalists like to call it because they don’t like "magic"), and also intentionally planning to fulfill scripture. There is no crystal clear example that I could find illustrating which of the three above possibilities is most likely. Jesus states that the scriptures must be fulfilled in him without saying exactly how.

The closest approximation of a biblical infallibility claim from the mouth of Jesus is included in these sayings. In Jn 10:34-37, Jesus is speaking about another subject and parenthetically interjects that "scripture cannot be broken". He seems to be referring here to Jewish belief, almost as if to say, "and you (Jews) say that scripture cannot be broken". He is not disagreeing with the statement either, almost as if to say, "we agree that scripture cannot be broken". Exactly what he really meant here is unclear. He certainly believed in the scriptures, but this does not mean that he rendered them infallible. In fact, he corrected and improved upon them at various times (see Mosaic law). To take this one parenthetical remark by Jesus as an assertion of biblical infallibility is ludicrous.

I wish to stress, however, that Jesus did consider the scriptures to be very important. In fact, his interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures was a primary factor that set him apart from the Pharisees and other religious leaders of the time. The lack of infallibility does not minimize the importance of scripture, either for Jesus or for us.

The traditional Old Testament view was that the people of Israel were God’s chosen people. Jesus’ comments on the subject might be more appropriately called "Not Chosen People". There seems to be a development in Jesus’ own thinking.

In the story of the healing of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mk 7:27 and Mt 15:24), Jesus states in Matthew that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In Mark he seems to imply same by saying that it’s not right to take the children’s (Jews?) bread and throw it to the dogs (Gentiles?). Another instance of similar thinking occurs in Mt 10:5-6 where Jesus again states the same as Mt 15:24 along with admonitions to the disciples to keep away from pagan practices and not to enter a Samaritan city.

There seems to be a changeover starting with the Syro-Phoenician woman’s response to Jesus about dogs eating the crumbs under the table. Jesus’ response to the woman’s statement was very positive and he did heal her (Mk 7:29 and Mt 15:28). Another instance where Jesus indicates a changeover in this area is in the story of the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (Jn 4:22-23) where Jesus says first that salvation is from the Jews, but then quickly follows with "the time is coming, and it is here, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth...."

In Luke, all references on this subject seem to be saying that the Jews are not the chosen people. Jesus upset the folks in his home town in Lk 4:24-27 with some pro-Gentile statements about Elijah and Elisha being sent to non-Jews. In Lk 14:23-24, a parable, he speaks of those who were invited (probably Israel) not coming to the feast, so go out and invite others (probably Gentiles). The story of the healing of ten lepers (Lk 17:18) is also Gentile friendly. The most scathing remark against (probably) the Jews is in Mt 21:43 where Jesus says that the kingdom will be taken away from you and given to those who bear fruits. In Jn 10:16, Jesus speaks of other sheep not of this fold (probably Gentiles) who will become one flock. All of these references are very much in contrast to the notion that God chose only Israel.

Of course, one could argue that God chose Israel in the beginning and then chose Gentiles through Jesus and later Paul. I have no great problem with such a view as long as it does not imply exclusivity. Jesus’ view late in his ministry was anything but exclusivist.

There are also three references to the disciples as chosen people in Jn 13:18, Jn 15:15-16, and Jn 15:19 where the main idea is that I (Jesus) chose you (disciples). Jesus seems to be changing the definition of God’s chosen people versus what the Jews were accustomed to. This is one reason that some of the Jews wanted him dead. Just like certain Christians today, they got very upset when someone challenged their views or criticized their practices as Jesus did.

Those who like to condemn others for working on Sunday had best skip this section. Jesus clearly and categorically stated that it is "lawful to do good on the Sabbath" (Mt 12:12). He said it again in Lk 6:9 (more or less) and in Lk 14:5 and in Jn 7:23. Jesus defended the disciples who were picking grain on the Sabbath in Mt 12:5 by referring to scripture about how the priests in the temple "disregard the Sabbath and yet are blameless". Another similar reference is made in Lk 6:3-5. Mk 2:27 puts it best by affirming that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. While it is nice to have Sundays off, there is absolutely no basis for it in the teachings of Jesus. Of course, Jesus was a Jew and the Sabbath was Saturday, so there’s no basis for having Saturdays off either. If you want weekends off, find a labor union, not Jesus.

In addition to 7 or 8 references about doing good on the Sabbath, there are 3 places where Jesus says that the "Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" (Mk 2:28, Lk 6:5, and Mt 12:8). The Son of Man was a commonly used phrase of Jesus referring in some sense to himself. In fact, he used this phrase much more often than Son of God. Exactly what it means, I do not profess to know, but it is also used frequently in Ezekiel referring to that prophet. It is interesting to note that Mk 2:27-28 connects the ideas of Sabbath made for man with Son of Man being Lord of the Sabbath. In Lk 6:3-5, Jesus points out how David broke the Sabbath law right before this affirmation. In Mt 12:7-8, a very revealing comment is made by Jesus: "But if you only knew what it means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice’, you would not condemn those who are blameless". Then his next words are that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. This is a clear departure from traditional Old Testament thinking with its burnt offerings and sacrifices. I interpret these statements by Jesus as a moving toward worship of a God of love and away from a somewhat superstitious Old Testament belief in a temperamental God who liked the smell of a good outdoor ram roast. Jesus may be implying here that any man is more or less lord of the Sabbath. I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a humanist, but the Sabbath teachings do lead one in that direction. Humanist or not, Jesus said that it’s OK to work on whatever day your Sabbath is as long as you are doing good.

Most references by Jesus to Mosaic Old Testament law are basically to the effect that we are supposed to obey it. On several occasions, Jesus refers to the law of Moses. Mk 1:44 indicates that one should present an offering as Moses commanded. In the rich young ruler story (Mk 10:19, Mt 19:17-19, and Lk 18:20), Jesus recites and/or refers to the law when asked about eternal life. In Mt 23:3, he tells people to do what the Pharisees say (the law) but not what they do. He refers to the law also in Jn 7:9 and 10:34-37, assuming that the law should be followed. The strongest statements by Jesus on the law are in Mt 5:17-18, Lk 16:16-17, and Lk 24:44, namely that Jesus came to fulfill (not weaken) the law, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one letter of the law to pass away, that not one dot of the law will pass away until all is fulfilled, and that everything in the law and prophets must be fulfilled concerning Jesus. He also indicates in Lk 16:31 and Jn 5:45-46 that people who do not believe Moses will not believe Jesus even if he or someone else should rise from the dead. No question that Jesus held Mosaic law to be very important.

There is a conflict of sorts here though. In Mt 19:8, Jesus says that "Moses, considering your hardness of heart, gave you permission to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." This implies that Mosaic law is not perfect. Jesus corrected and perfected Moses’ law. Also, in the rich young ruler story in Mk 10:21, after the man had told Jesus that he had followed the law from his youth, Jesus says that he lacks one thing, implying that the law is not enough. A much clearer case is Mt 15:20 where Jesus states that if a man should eat with unwashed hands, this is OK, contrary to Pharisaical interpretation of Mosaic law. Note also that Jesus defended breaking Mosaic law. If you doubt my words, read the five books of the law in the Old Testament. You will find numerous places where Moses’ law forbids working on the Sabbath and eating certain foods. Did Jesus contradict himself? After all, he said that not one dot of the law would pass away. What about the old animal sacrifices that are all over the Mosaic scriptures? Jesus did not advocate burnt offerings.

Without claiming to really know exactly what Jesus meant by the law, let me offer a suggestion: We often speak today of the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. If what Jesus meant when he said that not one dot of the law would pass away was the letter of the law, it would seem that he broke his own rule. On the other hand, if it’s the spirit of the law, it makes good sense, i.e., Moses gave the law to a primitive and violent people long ago. In spite of its imperfection, this law of Moses was a gleaming ray of light in the darkness of primitive man. Jesus improved the law, replacing some of the letter of the law that no longer applied, such as burnt offerings and certain Sabbath laws with a more all embracing commandment.

Jesus quotes Moses saying that we are to love the Lord God with all our hearts, etc. (Mk 12:29-31, Mt 22:37-40, Lk 10:25-28) and to love your neighbor as yourself. In Mt 22:40, he even says that "on these two commandments hang the law and the prophets". In Mt 7:12, he recites the golden rule: "Whatever you wish men to do to you, do likewise also for them; for this is the law and the prophets". Holy smokes! Jesus just summarized the entire Old Testament law into love and the golden rule! This is why I claim that he referred to the spirit of Mosaic law rather than the letter when commenting about how it will not pass away. Any fundamentalist who would like to disagree owes Jehovah about ten thousand rams, chicken wings, and all kinds of other stuff (read the books of Moses) by now! The law Jesus referred to was actually love. The ten commandments were examples, not the whole thing. If this view is incorrect, then Jesus seemingly contradicted himself about Mosaic law.

This section is dealing primarily with human justice and judgment as a topic in its own right, although it also deals with God’s judgment to a degree. Not included here is the notion of hell or other punishment that some think of as God’s judgment. That topic is treated separately.

In spite of his overwhelming concern for those less fortunate and strong criticism of the well off Pharisees and Sadducees, there are few instances where Jesus speaks directly about justice. Two are in the sermon on the mount. Mt 5:6 says "blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice". There is no contrast or conflict here between justice and mercy. The very next thing Jesus says is "blessed are the merciful". In Mt 5:10, Jesus says "blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of justice". Again, no justice versus mercy theology. He seems to be referring to human justice here, although divine and human justice are not treated as separate topics by Jesus in Matthew. The small number of references to justice does not mean that Jesus was not concerned about it. In so many parables and other stories, he shows a concern for justice without ever saying the word. Most of these also convey other points, so I did not include them again here. If it were not for the fact that Jesus showed concern for the poor and such, one could get the impression that he really didn’t deal with justice much at all, really just one main reference from one gospel. On the topic of justice, his actions spoke louder than his direct words.

One point is noteworthy, however, for socio-political liberals: He did not go on a crusade for social justice. There was plenty of uproar and injustice at the time. Barabbas had led an insurrection against the Romans. Politically, Jesus seemed a moderate. Did "render unto Caesar" mean to pay your taxes? Jesus’ revolution was one of the inner spirit, not the outer realm of politics and earthly power. Those who preach the social gospel should pay heed to this fact. Not to say that social gospel is wrong or should not be done, but don’t try to affirm it by quoting Jesus who had nothing to say about it. He did seem to care greatly about injustice, but he seemed to deal with it on an individual level rather than a collective level. Not saying that Jesus would be against the social gospel today, I wouldn’t say that he would be for it either.

There are numerous references by Jesus to human judgment. Lk 6:37 says "Judge not, and you will not be judged", which sounds like we are not supposed to judge at all. Mt 7:1-2 says, however, "Judge not, that you may not be judged ... with the same judgment that you judge, you will be judged", which sounds more like we are supposed to judge fairly and justly. Jn 7:24 says, "do not judge by partiality, but judge a just judgment". If I’m not supposed to judge at all, how can I judge justly? I would conclude that Mt 7:1-2 gives a better context of the "judge not" saying, namely that we should judge others as we would want to be judged, a just judgment. If the other interpretation is true (don’t judge at all), there are an awful lot of sinners in courtrooms all over the world disobeying Jesus’ teaching.

Jesus also speaks about using our human judgment to discern the truth. Without using the word, judge, he warns us of false prophets coming in his name in Lk 21:8. Mt 7:15-20 is a very important statement by Jesus: "Be careful of false prophets ... you will know them by their fruits ... every good tree bears good fruit ... thus by their fruit will you know them". In other words, listen to what they do! Who’s telling the truth about some scriptural interpretation? If one side is doing good and the other is not, that fact lends credence to side one’s interpretation. It’s not foolproof because anyone can accidentally be right sometime. Nonetheless, using our judgment to discern truth by looking at the results of the truth teacher’s work is very important. What did David Koresh do? What did Mother Theresa do? What did Martin Luther King do? What is Jerry Falwell doing? Whose gospel interpretation is correct? Judge by the fruits of the spirit.

Mt 11:19 says that "wisdom is justified by its works". Once again, look at what they do.

Mt 12:33-37 makes a similar point: "... a tree is known by its fruits ... for by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be found guilty". Remember when the Pharisees, wanting to crucify Jesus, presented the witnesses whose witness did not agree? There is nothing complicated about this. When you hear somebody contradicting himself, hedging, changing his story, obfuscating the facts, stonewalling, he is condemning himself by his own words. Isn’t Jesus telling us here the exact opposite of what pollsters tell politicians about getting elected? Politics often appeals our ignorance and greed while Jesus appeals to our honesty.

Another reference to human judgment is Mt 18:15-17 where Jesus tells people to reason with your brother if he wrongs you, then, that failing, take the dispute to 2 or 3 witnesses, finally if still no reconciliation, take it to the congregation ... before regarding your brother "as a tax collector and heathen". I must confess that I am suspicious of these verses being add-on’s to Jesus’ words by the author. The word, congregation, stands out like a sore thumb. Congregation of the church? There was no church in Jesus’ day. There was only a temple and a synagogue. What congregation? Also, it sounds more like Paul resolving a church dispute than Jesus teaching his disciples. If Jesus did say it, what does it mean? Jesus associated with tax collectors and heathens! The disciple, Matthew, was a tax collector, as was Zacchaeus, and Jesus healed many a heathen, including the Syro-Phoenician woman. Jesus often spoke kindly of the unpopular tax collectors and heathens. This text sounds more like Paul or a later editor than Jesus to me, but who really knows? Maybe Jesus was talking to Jews in their own language, so to speak?

The gospel of John deals with judgment in a different manner entirely from the synoptics. Here it appears to be God’s rather than human judgment at issue. I call John’s teachings on this subject "judgment and the trinity plus Moses". Here’s why.

Jn 5:22 says that "the Father does not judge any man, but he has entrusted all judgment to the Son", who would be Jesus Christ or at least his spirit. Jn 5:27-30 makes a similar statement but then adds: "I (the Son) can do nothing by myself ... my judgment is just; for I do not seek my own will, but the will of him who sent me (the Father)". So far, it sounds like the Father is really doing the judging, but has delegated the responsibility to the Son. Jn 9:39 says that "I (the Son) have come for the judgment of this world, so that those who (figuratively) cannot see may see (and vice versa)". OK, the Son does the judging, right?

Well, not exactly. Jn 8:15-16 says "I (the Son) judge no man. And if I should judge ...." In other words, if I did judge you, it would be just, but I don’t judge you. Jn 12:47-48 goes on to say "he who hears my words, and does not obey them, I will not judge him; for I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world ... the word which I have spoken, it will judge him at the last day". OK, the Father handed off to the Son who now says that his words, not himself but his words, will be the judge.

Finally, Jn 5:45-46 says "... there is one who will accuse you, even Moses, in whom you trust ...."

He also says here that people who believed Moses would believe him. OK, what does this mean? Another handoff, now to Moses? Huh? Let us take a more spiritual look.

Jesus came from God and is perfectly capable of judging the world, but that was not his purpose, which was saving the world. Jesus fulfilled (perfected) Mosaic law through his teachings (words). Therefore, there was no need for another judge. The law itself is our judge. We fall short of the perfection of the law, but God does not judge us. Could this mean that we judge ourselves in the afterlife, according to the law of love? Food for thought. Jesus’ point seems to be that God is a God of love, not of judgment. Our judgment comes from the law (what’s right and wrong) which did come from God to Moses at Mount Sinai, but the law is not God per se. Our salvation, on the other hand, comes from a loving God who does not judge. The preceding is my best judgment (oops) about what Jesus presumably was saying in John.

Jn 5:24 says one more thing about judgment, namely that there is no judgment for the believer. What about the non-believer? Does he judge himself? Does God condemn him? Does Satan grab him away from God? This topic will be revisited later.

Surprisingly, there are few references in the words of Jesus to the omnipresence (God is everywhere), omniscience (God knows all), and omnipotence (God is all powerful) of God. In fact, I could find no references to omnipresence at all. This does not mean that God is not imminent or present everywhere. It just means that Jesus had nothing to say about the matter that is recorded in scripture.

There are at least 3 references to omniscience. Mt 6:8 says that "... your Father knows what you need before you ask him ...." Mt 6:32 indicates that our Father in Heaven "knows that all of these things are necessary for you". Lk 16:15 says that "... God knows your hearts", presumably referring to thoughts and motivations.

There are at least 2 references to omnipotence, both stating that all things are possible with God. Lk 18:27 says that "things impossible to man are possible to God". Mt 19:26 says "... but for God everything is possible". Both sayings follow the rich young ruler story and the saying about how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom (easier for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle). The primary message of both statements is that God can do things that people think are impossible. It does not say that God is unopposed, i.e., there’s no Satan. It does not really say that God is all powerful. It does strongly imply that God is far more powerful than humanity.

It can be argued that other passages of scripture point out that God is all powerful. There does seem to be an assumption on Jesus’ part that this is true. However, I could find no specific statements to that effect by Jesus. The point is debatable.

Regarding all the omni’s, it is quite possible that little was said by Jesus because they were really not points of contention among the people to whom Jesus was talking, thus contesting the numbers game assumption that the crux of Jesus’ teachings were the things that he said most often. I cannot really refute such an argument. The numbers game is merely a starting point from which to open a more serious study. My counterpoint would be to caution omni fans to remember that the omni’s are church doctrine formulated long after Jesus’ stay on earth, and that Jesus never uttered (as far as we know) any of these Greek western philosophical words at all. The references above are to concepts that would support arguments for the omni doctrines. As you can see, they are few and far between. The only one that is relatively clear is omniscience: Jesus does say that God knows an awful lot, if not all. The other omni’s are far less definite if we take only Jesus’ words as gospel.

Before examining God’s will, perhaps we should ask how Jesus conceived of God in the first place. Is God a superman, a ghost with a spiritual body, or a spirit that pervades the universe? More than one of the above? None of the above? What?

Frankly, Jesus didn’t say! This was not listed as a separate topic because there were no specific references to it. Some would claim that Jesus’ many references to God as his Father proves that God is a man. If God is a man, why are there no sightings by Jesus or the disciples of a human-like male physical body in the person of God the Father in the gospels? Moses and Elijah are seen in the transfiguration, but God the Father is not seen as an image. Jesus often uses symbolic spiritual language in the gospels. The fact that Jesus refers to God as his Father does not mean that God is a superman or a ghost with a male aura. Jesus (and George Washington) lived in a patriarchal society. Women were not treated equally. Jesus’ reference to God as Father rather than Mother could have been due solely to the conditions of the time as regards the people that he was talking to, i.e., Jesus may have known full well that God was not a man, but he needed to communicate to others who had no other conception of what God was, therefore using Father as the descriptive term. Also, Father denotes a loving parent, which is part of what Jesus was saying that God was like. Jesus probably did not literally say that God was a father in the human sense. His meaning could have been that God’s spirit is like a Father is to a child. Some would say that Jesus himself is God. Jesus did not exactly say this. He said that he was one with God (I and the Father are one, etc.), which may or may not mean that he was God. More on that later.

Jesus’ argument with the religious leaders of the day was not about the philosophical nature of God as man, ghost, spirit, or whatever. Rather, it was about the ethical nature of God, the correct interpretation of God’s word in Mosaic law and such. Exactly how Jesus viewed God philosophically (if he did this at all) is not really known. "Father" language does not prove that God is a superman. Of course, it doesn’t prove that He wasn’t either. Basically, Jesus seems to assume the Old testament definition of God except that the Father concept replaced the tribal warlord concept. Whatever the exact concept of God was, Jesus did speak of God’s will.

There are about 9 instances where Jesus speaks of seeking God’s will. Mt 6:10 and Lk 11:2 (part of the Lord’s Prayer) say "thy will be done". Mk 14:36, Mt 26:39, and Lk 22:42 (the passion narrative) quote Jesus in prayer, asking God to let this cup (death) pass, but "thy will be done". Other references include Lk 23:46, Jn 4:34, Jn 5:30, and Jn 6:38, all of which seem to indicate that Jesus came to do God’s will. None of these passages really say what God’s will is.

I could only find 4 places where Jesus talked about what God’s will is. In Mt 11:26, after talking about how God had hidden certain truths from the wise and revealed them to children, he says, "O yes, my Father, for such was thy will". Presumably, this means that it is God’s will for his Truth to be available to all, especially the precious children, i.e., it is not a matter of intellect or education, but rather a matter of the right spirit.

Jn 6:39 says that God’s will is that Jesus should "lose nothing of all that he has given me, but should raise it up at the last day ...." More on this later with other topics. For now, whatever it means, it was God’s will.

The other 2 references to what God’s will is are indirect. Lk 16:15 says that "what is highly esteemed among men is disgusting in the presence of God". He was speaking to the Pharisees at the time, so presumably, he was referring to wealth, influence, authority, etc. on the human plane. This would be an example, perhaps, of what God’s will is not. Finally, Lk 13:6-9 gives a hint of God’s will (or is it just God’s patience?) with the parable of the fig tree: "... let it remain this year also, until I work it and fertilize it. It might bear fruit; and if not, then you can cut it down". This seems to refer to the "last days", but could refer to an individual human life.

The final caption under God’s will is what I called Jesus’ spiritual relatives. Mk 3:35, Mt 12:50, and Lk 8:21 say "whoever does the will of God is my brother ... and my mother ...." In Jn 19:26-27, Jesus says to his mother, "... woman, behold your son (John the son of Zebedee, not Jesus) ... (then to John he says) ... Behold your mother!" Literalists, get back! Jesus called John the son of his own mother Mary, which literally was not the case. If he can do this, he can also call a spirit his Father!

In summary, Jesus says remarkably little about exactly who/what God is or even exactly what God’s will is. However, he was speaking to Jews against the backdrop of Old Testament Judaism. His beef with the Pharisees was not over theology, but rather over honesty, ethics, and matters of the spirit. His lack of words on these subjects in recorded scripture does not mean that he didn’t consider these topics important. He just didn’t expound on them much in the gospels.

One of Jesus’ most beloved sayings is "he who has ears to hear, let him hear". I found 7 places where this saying was uttered: Mk 4:9, Mk 4:23, Mk 7:16, Mt 11:15, Mt 13:9, Mt 13:43, and Lk 8:8. In my opinion, this saying is a genuine statement from the historical Jesus. What does it mean? Let us look further into other accounts in the gospels on the subject.

Jesus seemed to be using the word, "hear", in two ways. The references above seem to refer to true hearing, i.e., hearing, understanding, and responding to God’s word and/or the Truth. He also used the word "hear" in other instances to simply mean hearing in the literal sense. I found 5 references to hearing without understanding.

Mk 4:11-12 and Mt 13:11-17 talk about the disciples being given the mystery of the kingdom while others must receive everything in parables. Then it says that if they should hear and turn, they would be forgiven. These passages are difficult and troublesome at first reading. It almost sounds as if Jesus is intentionally confusing them with parables so that they will not turn and hence be saved. Lamsa’s translation of the Peshitta in Matthew is helpful here. Other translations say "lest they return" whereas this translation says "let them return". Hopefully, the business of Jesus confusing them is due to such a translation error or misunderstanding of Aramaic idiom by the authors of the Greek text. If "lest" is changed to "let", the passage in Matthew sounds much more like Jesus and would still be consistent with the same passage in Mark. Nonetheless, Jesus did have some reason for speaking in parables to people other than the disciples. He interpreted some of the parables to the disciples but not to others. Perhaps he was testing them to see if they were genuine?

Lk 8:10 says "... and while they hear, they do not understand". By the way, many of these same references also speak of having eyes to see. I have chosen to focus on the hearing because it is a more dominant topic, and both appear to refer to the same type of spiritual understanding.

In Mk 8:17-18, after the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000 when there was no bread on the boat, Jesus says to the disciples, "do you not understand? You have ears and yet don’t hear? Do you not remember ...." Here, the word "hear" again refers to true understanding.

Lk 10:23-24 says, "blessed are the eyes which see what you see ... many prophets and kings desired to see what you see" (and same idea also for hearing). Jesus had given the disciples some type of spiritual understanding, which they sometimes appeared to lose, but which had never been given before, thus making Jesus unique in that regard.

The next sub-topic deals with the old saying about those who have getting more and those who have not losing even what they have. Many think that Jesus was speaking here of material wealth and have tried to use these passages as justification for upper class selfishness. Mk 4:24-25, Mt 13:11-17, and Lk 8:18 have often been summed up with the old expression "them that got gets", which is sometimes used as a blues lament by the poor or as an excuse for non-concern by the rich. Malarkey! These passages do NOT refer to material wealth! They refer to having ears to hear. Mk 4:24, the lead-in to this saying in Mark, says to "take heed what you hear". Read Mt 13:11-17 and you will see that this also has to do with hearing, not wealth. Lk 8:18 says the same thing as Mk 4:24. All 3 gospels that have the "them that got gets" theme also clearly point out that it refers to hearing, not money! The only scripture I’ve heard misinterpreted more than this one is the parable of the talents (a talent is a coin), where the preacher starts talking about using our singing and artistic talents to please God. Somebody tell a million conservative preachers and politicians that "them that got gets" refers to spiritual hearing, not money!

There are 4 references in addition to what’s been mentioned already to the idea that those who hear the word of God are blessed, or something closely related to that idea. These are Lk 11:28, Lk 12:37, Jn 8:47, and Jn 10:27-28.

I have placed the parable of the sower, a hard one to categorize, under the caption of ears to hear. These 3 references to the same parable are Mk 4:1-20, Mt 13:19-23, and Lk 8:11-15. Since Jesus specifically interprets this parable to the disciples after the parable itself is told, there is nothing for me to add. Read it for yourself. The only question I have is the exact meaning of the word of God. The seed represents the word of God, but what is the word of God? Evangelicals and fundamentalists say the Bible. It seems to me that if Jesus considered scripture to be the word of God, he would have said so somewhere. He talks often about scripture and considers it very important, but he never calls scripture the word of God. Here, where he specifically teaches about the word of God, he does not mention scripture in the parable. Rather, the word of God seems to refer either to the teachings of Jesus or to spiritual truth of God in general. Once again, orthodoxy comes up lacking when we examine Jesus’ actual words.

So what is the word of God? If it’s not believing every jot of the Bible, then what is it? Jesus does not specifically say what it is, but if you read the entire account of his life, it makes more sense. It has to do with prayer, with truth, with love, with being open to a power greater than yourself. It also has to do with scripture, but it is not equal to scripture. The word of God is difficult to define in words. Maybe that’s why Jesus spoke in parables.

The reason that fear is grouped with faith is because I noticed, while collecting references about faith, that fear is often viewed by Jesus as the antithesis of faith. The vast majority of the references I found were about faith rather than fear. Most references about fear were pitting faith against fear.

There are only 2 places where Jesus says to be afraid. Mt 10:28 and Lk 12:4-5, the same saying, point out that we should not fear those who can kill only the body, but fear him who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Who is "him"? God? Satan? Another person who causes one to stumble? We cannot tell for sure from this reference, and it is not crystal clear from other passages either. I found one reference (to be discussed later) that seems to say that God, not Satan, condemns souls to hell. Perhaps Jesus is saying here to fear God? Fundamentalists would love that, I suppose, but if that is what he is saying here, note that it is only said here, nowhere else in the gospels, nowhere in Mark, nowhere in John. I would contend that fear of God, if that’s even what he meant here, is not a central theme of Jesus’ ministry. Nonetheless, most of us, not just fundamentalists, do fear God, don’t we? Maybe because of our lack of faith? I can see where fear of God has a certain validity as a first phase of spiritual living. A person with no regard for his fellow human beings or God may need to be "scared straight", but once on the right path, the fear is supposed to be transcended by love.

Is there such a thing as legitimate fear other than what Jesus referenced here? Most of us would say there is. What we need to do in our lives is separate the real fears from the ones that we cause ourselves by our wrong attitudes and irrational thinking. That is not what Jesus said here though. Technically speaking, he said not to fear the bullet or the knife, those who can kill only the body. It is possible, however, that he was using a figure of speech comparison, i.e, worry less about these fears and more about matters of the spirit.

Now, on to the main topic, faith. There are about 18 references where Jesus in some way pits faith against fear. Mk 4:40 and Mt 8:26 (after the calming of the sea) have Jesus asking the disciples why they are so fearful and have so little faith. Jn 6:20 (Jesus walking on water) says "It is I, do not be afraid". Mk 5:36 says "fear not, only believe". Mk 6:50 says, "have courage, it is I, do not be afraid". In Mt 6:25-32, Jesus gives a long discourse (which I counted as only 1 reference) about not worrying ... God feeds the birds ... can’t add to stature by worrying ... God clothes the flowers ... even more mindful of you ... again, don’t worry. In Mt 6:34, he says, "do not worry, let today’s trouble be sufficient for today". Mt 10:31 and Lk 12:7 say not to fear because you are more important than the sparrows that God feeds. Mt 17:7 (at the transfiguration) says "arise, do not be afraid". In the post-resurrection passages of Mt 28:10 and Lk 24:36, Jesus says not to be afraid. Lk 5:10 says "do not be afraid ... you will be catching men (figure of speech relative to fish) to save them". Lk 8:50 says "do not be afraid, but only believe, and she will be restored to life". In the Mary-Martha story of Lk 10:41-42, Jesus says to Martha, "... you are worried and excited about many things; but one thing is more important ...." In Lk 12:22-30, there is another long discourse by Jesus, similar but not identical to Mt 6:25-32, where Jesus again talks about birds and flowers, and how God takes care of them, and not to worry, "O you of little faith".

There is one reference where Jesus himself was afraid, but we shouldn’t count it because it’s not Jesus speaking. Lk 22:44 says "he was in fear ... his sweat became like ... blood". Of course, he overcame this fear and faced the cross voluntarily.

The notion of faith being the opposite of fear is mentioned enough times by Jesus that there can be little doubt of its centrality to his message. Interestingly, is it not mentioned much in John, but is very dominant in all 3 synoptic gospels. This premise presents a practical problem for fundamentalists whose central message is to get saved or go to hell. Of course they have an explanation for it (like everything else), but if Jesus wants us to have faith, what place is there for fear? Idealistic I know, but isn’t that what Jesus said about 15 or so times above? There is also, quite frankly, a conflict here with lots of Old Testament teachings where God is portrayed as an angry vengeful being, so we can’t fault the fundamentalists too much for agreeing with them. Note that I said conflict, not contradiction. There is a grain of truth in the Old Testament and/or fundamentalist view too. More on that later.

There are about 8 references to faith healing in Jesus’ actual words, not counting instances where he did it without talking about it. Mk 5:34 and Mt 9:22 (story of the woman with flow of blood who touched Jesus’ garment) say simply, "your faith has healed you". Note that it does not say that Jesus’ robe had magical powers, it says the woman’s faith healed her. Did Jesus have anything to do with it, other than the fact that he was what she had faith in? If her faith had been in someone else other than Jesus, would she have been healed? It doesn’t say in these passages one way or the other. Of course, nobody else but Jesus gave her any reason to have this kind of faith, so one could argue that the question is moot.

Again in Mk 10:52 and Lk 18:42 (healing of blind Bartimaeus), Jesus simply says that "your faith has healed you". Again, Lk 17:19 (to Samaritan leper), the exact same words. Lk 7:50 (to the woman who kissed Jesus’ feet) says "your faith has saved you". The same questions above would apply to these passages as well.

Lk 7:14 says "young man, I tell you, arise" to the widow’s son who Jesus raised from the dead. In this case, there had to have been something involved other than the faith of the one healed, because the person healed had been dead. Jesus did have some kind of special power to be sure. How else would he have become so well known that people flocked around him like sheep?

Mk 9:39-40 says "no man who performs miracles in my name will hastily speak evil of me ... he who is not against you is for you". Here, Jesus specifically uses the term, miracle, in connection with what was probably faith healing. Again, it is not only the faith of the sick person. There also needs to be a healer, in this case, not Jesus, but some unknown follower.

Most people who are knowledgeable about faith healing will tell you that it usually requires both faith on the part of the person being healed and also a gifted and faithful healer. This might not be an absolute rule, but it seems the norm in Jesus’ ministry. Jesus is the great healer, but healing requires also the faith of the sick person. Note also that the power of faith healing is not limited to Jesus. In the reference above, someone that Jesus may not have even known was performing miracles, presumably faith healings. Jesus was not saying that only he, the Son of God, could perform miraculous healings. He was saying that others could as well. He was talking here about tapping into some sort of spiritual power, not just fulfilling a role as God’s miracle worker.

All things are possible with faith in God. Jesus said this about 11 times.

Mk 9:23 says that "if you can believe, everything is possible to him who believes". Everything is possible to those who believe in what? This particular passage does not specify, but the answer is rather obvious. Mk 10:27 and Mt 19:26 say that everything is possible with God. This is easy enough to profess as a theological position, but not so easy to live. People do not usually act as if all things are possible. The most extreme statement on the matter by Jesus is found in Mk 11:22-23, Mt 17:20, Mt 21:21, and Lk 17:6. I will quote Mk 11:22-23 although I could have picked any of them for the same meaning: "If you have faith in God ... whoever should say to this mountain, be moved and fall into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will be done, it will be done ...." The only significant difference in Luke’s account from the others is that the mountain has become a mulberry tree, slightly less impossible by conventional wisdom. Is this supposed to be taken literally? If so, who has ever had faith? I have never heard of anyone in recorded history actually doing this, nor am I aware of any mountains or mulberry trees splashing into the ocean because someone believed it would happen. Scripture does not even say that Jesus actually did this. These passages are a problem for modern scientific people. Nonetheless, Jesus very likely did utter words similar to these.

What does this mean? The easy way out is to say that he was speaking symbolically here and that the mountain or tree represented large life problems which can be dealt with and solved by faith in God, or some other variation of a symbolic truth or moral teaching about this life or the life to come. If all things are possible with God, however, even this incredible event is literally possible. Is it really rational to believe that God created the universe and then rendered himself powerless to override its normal rules? On the other hand, it is one thing to say that all things are possible as a theoretical idea, but quite another to actually consider that casting a mountain into the sea by faith might actually and literally happen! The real possibility that God would override the laws of the very nature he created is mind boggling, especially to say that a person’s faith could do this. The possibility of literal truth here is something to really think about. All things are possible with God. Does this mean that God does it that miraculous way? Not necessarily, but it’s possible, and not just as a doctrine but as a potential reality. That is hard for moderns to honestly swallow, but it may very well be what Jesus was saying here. On the other hand, maybe it was only symbolic. So far, we don’t know for sure.

Another problem for some people is that Jesus seems to be saying here that faith is absolute, like an on-off switch, you either have it or you don’t. In Luke, the passage about the mulberry tree follows a request by one of the disciples of Jesus to increase their faith. His response begins with "if you have faith even as a grain of mustard seed" followed by the description of the tree being cast into the sea by faith. The mustard seed, of course, is very small, implying that if you have any faith at all, you can perform incredible miracles. One possible conclusion of the literal interpretation is that nobody has any faith at all. But isn’t the world supposed to end or something when that happens, or at least another flood like with Noah? I never heard about reports of any flying mulberry trees or mountains in 100 A.D. either. Maybe the story is symbolic. Nonetheless, Jesus does seem here to be saying that faith is absolute, not relative, which, quite frankly, is a problem to me, but that doesn’t change what he said.

Regarding prayer, Jesus says in Mk 11:24 that "anything you pray for and ask, believe that you will receive it, and it will be done ...." Wait a minute. What about all those sermons I’ve heard about the times when God’s answer to a prayer is "no" because we’re not praying for the right things? That is NOT what Jesus says here. I could pray for a wrong thing and also believe that I will receive it (maybe I don’t know it’s wrong at the time and really think that God will provide it). Mk 11:24 says that if this is the case, I will receive that wrong thing, contrary to what all those preachers have been saying for all those years.

Has the scripture been changed somehow through translation error? Mk 11:24 is consistent with most of what Jesus had to say about faith. He was radical about it. Was he wrong? Is it symbolically true but literally false? Maybe the problem has to do with what we think of as prayer. I do not profess to know, but this radical statement cannot easily be explained away by the moderates. If you’re a moderate, you could argue that this particular passage does not appear in the same form in the other gospels, therefore perhaps a mistaken idea or literary error by the author of Mark. Ah, that’s easier than arguing with Jesus, isn’t it? Think and pray about it.

Matthew and Luke are a bit less radical on this issue. Mt 7:7-8 says "ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened ...." It doesn’t say "every single time" as implied by Mark. Lk 11:9-10 says "ask and it shall be given to you ... EVERYONE who asks receives", but it doesn’t say "every single time". Ah, thinketh the moderate, this is easier to swallow.

Then along comes Mt 18:19 (not Mark this time) to ruin the moderate’s day: "... if two of you are worthy on earth, ANYTHING that they would ask will be done for them by my Father in heaven". It’s that absolute "A" word again. Isn’t this passage interesting? It’s radical once the "if" condition is met, but it’s got to be two of you (not one) and both must be worthy before the promise is made. So, did I get that "no" from God because I wasn’t worthy and/or because nobody else was praying for the same thing at the same time? Actually, I don’t think that’s what Jesus was getting at here, but it is noteworthy that Matthew’s words on the subject do have at least the "worthy" qualification that is missing in Mark. Suffice it to say that the details are not crystal clear regarding exactly how absolute Jesus’ meanings were on this topic. I would not categorically say that God answers some prayers with a "no", but I would not say the opposite either. I would say that God answers prayer, exactly how, I do not know, but faith says there is an answer, even if it’s not the one I want to hear.

Regardless of exact meanings and/or controversy about the passages above, it is clear that Jesus was not just whistling Dixie about radical, limitless faith. He was not kidding or teaching a theory when he said that all things are possible with God. It was one of his central core themes in the synoptic gospels. Whether you believe it or not, it cannot be explained away as a preoccupation of one scriptural author or as an isolated comment that has questionable historical value. There are too many references in too many gospels for that, and despite some dispute about certain details re. prayer, there is a general consistency to all the references about all things being possible through faith in God. The only shadow of doubt is the lack of similar passages in John. I’ll let the scholars figure that one out. When 3 gospels agree as many times on a subject as is the case here, there is little doubt in my mind about its authenticity.

The next sub-topic under faith is this (30 A.D.) faithless generation. In the story of the healing of the epileptic (Mk 9:19, Mt 17:17, and Lk 9:41), Jesus says "O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you" (Mk 9:19). Matthew and Luke also say that the generation is crooked. The disciples had been unable to heal the epileptic, perhaps showing how lack of faith can inhibit healing just as faith can promote it.

The other 2 references to unbelief are milder, not directly stating a faithless generation. Both are in Matthew, and both are directed at Jesus’ very disciples. Mt 14:31 (after stilling the storm) says "O you (disciples) of little faith, why did you doubt?". Mt 16:8-9 (no bread on boat after feeding of the 5000 and the 4000) says "O you of little faith ... do you not yet understand ... do you not remember the five loaves ...."

Notice that here Jesus speaks of "little" faith. He doesn’t say "no faith". Faith is portrayed here as relative, not absolute. Earlier references implied that faith was like an on-off switch, you either have it or you don’t. Here, it is more like a water faucet. The disciples are dripping with just a little faith, but not much, not enough to heal the epileptic. This feeds right into the next sub-topic, degrees of faith. Since the 2 references above could really be counted in this category, perhaps we can say there are 4 references to degrees of faith. The other 2 are Mt 8:10 and Lk 7:9 (healing of the centurion’s servant). About the centurion, both say the exact same thing, "not even in Israel have I found such faith as this". Jesus is implying here that he has found some faith in Israel, but not as much faith as that of this centurion, a Roman, not a Jew. Not as much faith implies that faith is relative, not absolute.

What do we make of this seeming contradiction in Jesus’ own words? Earlier when speaking of the mulberry tree/mountain/sea, he implied that faith was absolute. Even the tiniest bit of faith can move mountains. Now, he refers to it as a relative thing, some having more (the centurion) and some having less (the disciples at that time). My best guess is that the earlier references to faith as absolute were exaggerations and/or symbolic language on Jesus’ part in order to drive home the point that faith in God can work wonders. It does seem that faith is relative. Based purely on scriptural testimony of Jesus, however, the case could be argued either way. My challenge to the other side would be to explain Jesus’ very words, "little faith" (not no faith) and "such faith as this" if faith is absolute.

The next sub-topic under faith is persistence, keep bugging God until he gives in. This sounds silly and mundane, as if God is a man affected by nagging, but there is 1 reference to such a concept. This is part of a parable, and it is possible that I am not understanding the meaning, but Lk 11:8 says "... if because of friendship he will not give him, yet because of his persistence, he will ... give him as much as he wants". I don’t really have much to say about this one. Not really sure how to interpret it, and there’s only 1 reference, so I don’t think it’s a central theme of Jesus.

Faith and evidence.

Most references here come from John. Jn 4:48 says "... unless you see miracles and wonders, you will not believe". The context here was that a man had heard that Jesus performed miracles and asked him to heal his son. It is not clear here whether Jesus was scolding the man or simply making a factual statement. In the story of the raising of Lazarus, Jn 11:14-15, Jesus says "... Lazar (Lazarus) is dead; And I am glad I was not there, for your sakes, so that you may believe ...." The clear implication here is that Jesus would show the disciples directly (by raising Lazarus), hence giving them the evidence they needed to more fully believe in him. Here, evidence matters. In Jn 14:11, Jesus says to "believe because of the works". Again, believe because of the evidence.

Jesus comments briefly about the matter (indirectly) in the synoptic gospels. Lk 10:19 says "behold, I give you power to tread on snakes and scorpions, and overcome the power of the enemy; and nothing shall harm you". How is this related to faith? Look at a similar passage in Mk 16:17-18: "Wonders will follow those who believe ... they will cast out demons (as Jesus did); they will speak with new tongues; handle snakes (Aramaic idiom for enemies); drink any poison of death (no Aramaic idiom known here); heal the sick ( as Jesus did) ...." Again, Jesus is saying that there will be evidence about who are the true believers. These passages do not say that real faith is blind believing without seeing.

Now, let’s digress for a moment and deal with the snakes. There are some primitives in North Georgia and other places who take these last two passages literally. They handle snakes and drink strychnine at worship services. I saw a Discovery Channel special on them once. Sometimes, one will be bitten by a rattlesnake. Occasionally, one will die from same. They did not say whether they drank arsenic also. If everything in the Bible is literally infallible, this is what Christians are supposed to be doing, I guess. Jesus supposedly said that true believers will do these things. Any fundamentalist who denies this is not a true fundamentalist, because all scripture is supposed to be infallible. Despite their incredible style of worship, I respect the snake handlers more than most other fundamentalists because at least they’re being consistent with what they profess to believe. If Jerry Falwell and John Osteen are true infallible-Bible-literalist fundamentalists, they’d best get out to the garden and bring some snakes to church, because that’s what the Bible says!

Now, the facts: Mk 16:17-18 was not part of the original gospel of Mark. This is historical fact. Ask any biblical scholar. It is not in the earliest manuscripts discovered by the archaeologists, and these earliest manuscripts date somewhere around 400 A.D. The oldest gospel of Mark that we have ends abruptly at 16:8. The women saw the empty tomb and were amazed. This snake stuff was an obvious add-on by the church and most likely was never really said by Jesus. There are also 2 other alternate endings to Mark. Again, consult the scholars.

That fact does not, however, explain Lk 10:19, which was said prior to his crucifixion as a prophecy. However, if snake was an Aramaic idiom for enemy, it is quite likely that Lk 10:19 was not intended to be a purely literal statement by Jesus. The disciples did die eventually, some violently - they were harmed - what happened to Jesus’ promise in Lk 10:19? Chances are, he never meant it that way in the first place. He was probably referring to the afterlife where the saints live on, in that sense unharmed by the evils (snakes) of the world. Snake handler worshipers who are reading this can tell that I am biased against them, right? Darn right! I’ll try any jive argument I can find to stay away from snakes.

Back to faith and evidence. Note that Lk 10:19 does not specifically relate to faith. The Markan add-on does, but it’s likely not authentic anyway. Where does this leave us re. faith and evidence? Basically, back where we were before. There’s really nothing directly of value to be found on the topic in the synoptic gospels. We are back to John, where there were 3 references that linked them together (see above). The last reference is Jn 20:27-29. Jesus is speaking to the doubting Thomas after the resurrection. Of course, we know the story of how Thomas did not believe until he touched the nail marks in Jesus’ side. Jesus says, "... do not be faithless, but believing ... blessed are those who have not seen me, and have believed". Here, Jesus offers the other view, namely that faith should not be based on evidence, i.e., blind faith. Did Jesus contradict himself? Which view was right?

Consider the context. Much of Jesus’ life was spent contesting the Pharisees re. the Truth. He hoped that people would believe him because of the way he was (honest, loving, helpful, etc.), but if people believed in him because of miracles performed, that was OK too, albeit not as pure as the true believer who trusted Jesus because of Jesus’ nature. It’s not necessarily a contradiction. The right kind of blind faith is the highest form of faith (although the wrong kind is a disaster, false prophets, etc.), but for those who need evidence in order to believe, Jesus provided it. He did not condemn Thomas to hell for asking to see the nail prints. Thomas did not hang himself like Judas. Those who love to condemn the doubting Thomas, behold, he was still a disciple after the resurrection, and he received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost with the other 10, and he was not replaced by someone else like Judas. Faith does not have to be blind to be valid. Doubting Thomas’s of the world, take heart. This is not an excuse for agnosticism (sooner or later, you must decide and stick with it), but Jesus did not condemn honest doubters like Thomas. He just blessed those who had less doubts - no problem with that.

So what’s the verdict on faith and evidence? The right kind of pure blind faith based on intuition (or whatever it’s supposed to be based on) is the highest form of faith, but faith based on evidence is legitimate also. In fact, if the doubting Thomas story is not included in the analysis, there is more scriptural testimony for faith with evidence than for blind faith. Jesus did not seem picky about why you believed in him. He just wanted people to believe in him because he spoke the Truth.

One final comment: Jesus did not perform miracles for those who derided him during the trial and on the cross. They too asked for evidence. Jesus provided none. These folks had no faith in Jesus. Thomas had some faith, but it needed to grow. Ironically, faith is both absolute and relative. Some have zero. That is absolute. Others have faith, the absolute opposite of zero faith. Among those who have faith, however, it is relative, some have more than others. Basically, faith is relative, but there is a point at which a person must choose faith versus no faith. Jesus didn’t say that, I did, so I hope it’s close to the truth, but I don’t claim to know for sure.

Faith is still not done. There are 8 more references on faith that are somewhat general in nature. Some refer to belief. Some do not.

Mt 7:9-11 speaks of faith in God indirectly. After explaining that a father would give a son what he asks for, Jesus says "if you who err know how to give ... how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him?" Lk 22:32 (Jesus to Peter) says "but I have made supplication for you that your faith may not weaken; and even you in time will repent and strengthen your brethren". Of course, Peter denied Jesus before receiving the Holy Spirit. Continuing the discourse with the disciples in Lk 22:35, Jesus asks "... when I sent you out without purses ... did you lack anything?" Lack (along with fear) is sometimes described as the opposite of faith.

There are several references to belief. In Mt 9:28, Jesus asks a blind man, "do you believe that I can do this?" Jn 5:44 asks "how can you believe, when you accept praise from one another, but the praise from God only, you do not want?" Jn 7:38 says "whoever believes in me, just as the scriptures have said, the rivers of living water shall flow from within him". In Jn 11:40, Jesus says to Martha, "... if you believe, you will see the glory of God". Jn 14:1 says "... believe in God, and believe in me also".

Is belief the same thing as faith? Based on the above scripture passages which are about believing in someone, they seem to be 2 words for the same thing. However, the word "believe" as normally used in our culture refers more often to belief about a particular event, viewpoint, or other thing. There is a big difference between believing something and believing IN something. The former is of the "mind" (or lack thereof), the "left brain". The latter is of the "heart", the "right brain". Believing something about God or Jesus is not the same thing as believing IN God or Jesus. Jesus did not say that one must believe this, that, and the other about him. He did not say that you must believe, for example, in the literal virgin birth, to be saved. The question is not whether some event happened in some fashion. Rather, it is whether you trust God and/or Jesus to make a difference in your life. Jesus said to believe in him. This belief in something is faith. The other kind of belief, whether it be factual or just opinionated, is not what faith is.

Notice another thing that Jesus did NOT say about faith: He did not say anywhere that justification is by faith alone without works. His primary focus regarding faith was in some ways rather utilitarian, basically, if you have faith, you can get what you want. Of course, the "what you want" was probably assumed by Jesus to be something spiritual, or at least generally helpful, in nature. I don’t think he would have advocated having faith in pulling off a bank robbery. Nonetheless, faith is portrayed as a source of power more so than as a source of salvation. As we will see in subsequent sections, Jesus speaks of good works and salvation together a lot more than faith and salvation. The written record that we have of what Jesus said does not agree with the testimony of Paul or Martin Luther about justification by faith alone.

For Jesus, there was no conflict between faith and works. Though he had more to say about faith, he also had plenty to say about works. I found 26 references.

The first sub-topic is feeding and/or helping the poor. He did not say that this was the function of the government. Of course, the government in those days was the Roman Empire, and few if any Jews really expected much help from them, rich or poor. He clearly stated that concern for the poor was very important for the individual follower of his teachings.

The most radical statement of Jesus on this topic is in the rich young ruler story (Mk 10:21, Mt 19:21, and Lk 18:22) where Jesus tells this man to "sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you shall have a treasure in heaven". He also says for the man to come and follow him. Matthew prefaces the statements with "if you wish to be perfect". Taken to its logical extreme, this would mean that only those who sell everything and give it all to the poor will go to heaven. Hopefully, this is not the case, else heaven is a very lonely place. He said this to one particular individual, not everyone. Also, remember the context: The Jews were seeking a Messiah, whom Jesus claimed to be. This was not your everyday normal situation. The "follow me" part of it could have been as difficult for the man (who went away sadly) as the parting with all his possessions. We should not attempt to universalize every word of Jesus. Nonetheless, we should not ignore his basic thrust either. He clearly cared deeply about the poor, and he was none too friendly with the have’s who refused to share with the have-not’s.

In the story of Zacchaeus in Lk 19:8-9, after Zacchaeus pledges to give half his wealth to the poor and repay all his tax rip-off victims fourfold, Jesus says "today life has come to this house". He didn’t condemn Zacchaeus for only giving half, not all, to the poor. However, can you imagine Ross Perot giving half of his total wealth to the poor? Please note that Ross Perot is one of the more generous of the billionaires around today. Most people don’t even tithe. What would Jesus say about America today? I don’t think it would be very nice. I doubt if Europe or Japan would fare much better.

Rich classist bigots love to quote Mk 14:7, Mt 26:11, and/or Jn 12:8 which say that we will always have the poor with us, as if to say that Jesus condoned ignoring the poor. They like to use this as an excuse to defend uncontrolled capitalism, racism, classism, and other ‘isms. They should let Jesus finish his sentence: "and when you wish, you can do good to them; but I am not always with you" (Mk 14:7). Jesus was excusing the woman who poured expensive ointment on him after the disciples had said that the money should have been spent on the poor. Jesus knew that he would soon be facing probable death. This woman had performed a beautiful symbolic act by anointing Jesus (one definition of Christ or Messiah is "the anointed one"). No way was Jesus showing a lack of concern for the poor here. In fact, Jn 12:6 explained that Judas, who criticized the woman, did not care for the poor and was a thief (and betrayer of Jesus). Judas, who spoke on behalf of the poor here, was a hypocrite. Jesus, who really spoke for the poor, knew that there were exceptions to rules and that this was one of them. He was quite correct in saying that the poor are still with us. He did not say that this was right or as it should be. Upper-middle class conservatives had best realize that Jesus resembled Robin Hood on this subject much more than he resembled Donald Trump. He didn’t suggest robbing the rich, but he had little patience with selfish rich hypocrites, as we will see later.

Jesus was a friend to the poor. Mt 11:5 says, among other good things, that "the poor are given hope". That sounds more like Jesse Jackson than Jessie Helms. Mt 11:28-30 says "come to me, all you who labor and carry burdens, and I will give you rest ...." In that society, the rich did not labor nor did they carry burdens. He was referring to the poor hard working people at the bottom.

In Lk 14:13-14, Jesus comes right out and says to feed the poor in so many words: "But when you give a reception (presumably with food), invite the poor and the maimed, the lame, and the blind; and you will be blessed; for they have nothing to repay you ...." Any religion that ignores the poor is ignoring a fairly major theme of Jesus. You cannot explain away these 10 references, especially the stories above that appear in 3 of the 4 gospels. Who would add on such a difficult and unpopular topic as this to Jesus’ words? If the orthodox Catholic church were to add their own teachings to the gospels, wouldn’t those add-on’s be favorable to those with power, influence, and money in the church? The poor have rarely had any influence on church dogma apart from the real word of God! In my view, the preceding references are as authentic as anything in scripture.

Jesus also spoke of feeding people, without specifying whether they were rich or poor. In the story of the feeding of the 5,000 in Mk 6:37, Jesus says "you give them (something) to eat". In the feeding of the 4,000 in Mk 8:2, he says "I have pity on these people ... they have nothing to eat". In his passionate end time discourse in Mt 24:45-46, Jesus says "... faithful and wise servant ... to give them food ... blessed is that servant, when his lord comes and finds him so doing". It doesn’t say "who accepted Jesus by faith" or "who has right beliefs". It speaks of feeding people, caring about people, and doing good works.

Among the most beautiful scriptural testimonies on this topic is the risen Jesus’ discourse with Peter in Jn 21:15-17. Three times, Jesus asks Peter if he loves him. Three times Peter says yes. Three times (one for each earlier denial?) Jesus says "feed my lambs". You may argue the authenticity of this passage if you like (only in John, not the others), but in light of the other things Jesus said on the matter, it is hard to argue its meaning. Salvation by faith without works was not what Jesus was all about. He wanted the sheep fed.

There are 12 more references to add to the 14 above on the topic of works. Interestingly, there are no instances here where the same statement is made by Jesus in the same context in more than one gospel. Each statement is recorded by one gospel author only. Also, there are none in Mark. The two in Matthew do not appear in Luke. Most are in Luke and John. Since these good works statements by Jesus are all products of the individual gospel authors with no common source, does this mean that they are not authentic? I didn’t say that.

Mt 10:8 simply says to "heal the sick, cast out demons ... freely give". Mt 25:35-40, the final judgment narrative, says "for I was hungry and you gave me food ... I was a stranger and you took me in ... sick ... in prison ... and you visited me ... inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me". This is part of a parable where "me" refers to a king, presumably standing for God. He also had the reverse to say about those who did not do these things (see punishment, hell, etc.).

Lk 6:38 says, "give, and it will be given to you ... with the measure that you measure, it will be measured to you". Here, we have not only the idea of good works, but also the notion of relative reward and punishment. The next 3 references could have been included with the above, but I counted them separately, so if someone wants to argue that there are really only 9 references in this group rather than 12, I can accept that. Lk 6:43-44 says "there is no good tree that bears bad fruit, nor a bad tree that bears good fruit ... every tree is known by its own fruit". This could be interpreted as an absolute separation (rather than relative), but it doesn’t really say that. How many perfect or totally useless trees are there? Lk 6:45 similarly says "a good man brings out good things ... and a bad man ... brings out bad things". Does this mean that some people are all good while others are all bad? He didn’t say all good or absolutely good, just good. Good and bad could still be relative qualities of people. He just finished talking above about the measure you give and get, the measure, implying relativity.

Jesus may be referring here to absolutes, relativity, or both. It is subject to interpretation. Finally, in this section, Lk 6:47-49 says that he who "hears my words and DOES them ... is like a man who built a house ... upon rock ... he who hears and does not is like a man who built his house ... without a foundation ... and the fall of that house was great". Absolutists could argue here that either the house withstood the weather or it didn’t. Perhaps there is truth in both the absolute and relative views. In all these passages, Jesus was speaking of works, doing; not faith, believing. With Jesus, faith got you what you needed spiritually, but good works was how you were justified, at least partly.

Lk 10:30-37, the good Samaritan story, says "who therefore of these three ... became neighbor ... go also, and do likewise" (help those in need). Lk 12:33 says "sell your possessions and give them as alms ...." This does not specifically say to give the money to the poor. Note that the earliest Christians sold their possessions and gave the money to the church, which was communal in nature (see Acts). Again, selling your possessions and saving an injured person are works, not beliefs or even prayer.

Jn 5:29 says "... those who have done good works to the resurrection of life ... evil works to the resurrection of judgment". Did you get that? Do good, go to heaven. Do evil, go to hell (if there is one). It doesn’t say anything about what you believe or even who your faith is in. Of course, Jesus had more to say on the matter later (see forgiveness), but this is a far cry from justification by faith alone without works. Jn 10:25 says "... the works which I do in the name of my Father testify to me". I have nothing to add to that one. Jn 10:37-38 says "if I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me, but if I am doing them, even though you do not believe in me, believe in the works, so that you may know and believe that my Father is with me and I am with my Father". How do you tell a phony preacher from a man of God? By his works! Are these works relative, i.e., some good, some not, for one person? I think so, but there could be an absolute judgment at some point.

Jn 14:12 says "... he who believes in me shall do the works which I do; and even greater than these things he shall do, because I am going to my Father". Holy smokes! Do you realize what Jesus said here? Interpreted totally literally, this could mean that nobody believes in Jesus! He said that true believers will do works even greater than his own. I haven’t met anyone lately who voluntarily with forethought died for what he/she believed in with no coercion of any sort. Jesus could have backed out. This was not like dying in a war where you’re trying to stay alive but get shot. Even Martin Luther King, who had a premonition of death, did not know that death by violence was inevitable. What greater work is there than voluntarily dying without resistance for your friends? Furthermore, he did this with forethought. I haven’t met any Jesuses lately myself. Have you? Does this mean there are no believers? Again, let’s not be quite so literal or absolute. Maybe he meant that believers or followers would do similar works in a general way. Of course, he did say "even greater" works. I can’t explain it away, but I see it as a goal rather than as a reality. Whatever the exact meaning of Jn 14:12, it is NOT once saved by faith, always saved, and works are just an afterthought, the result of faith. Once again, Jesus’ very words testify to the falsehood of some orthodox teachings.

Do the preceding passages sound odd or different from the majority of Jesus’ teachings? I don’t think so. It may sound different from Paul, but not from Jesus. It sounds to me like most (if not all) of these passages are genuine, i.e., Jesus really said something very similar. This stuff sounds like justification by works to me. If that’s true, we’d better hope it’s relative, lest we all miss the eternal boat. Of course, he did have more to say which is covered later (it’s not all works), but good works are no afterthought with Jesus.

There are at least 13 references from the words of Jesus that say "follow me". Included is the story of the rich young ruler and other discourses that include another sub-topic here, bearing one’s cross. The references are Mk 1:17, Mk 2:14, Mk 8:34, Mk 10:21, Mt 4:19, Mt 9:9, Mt 10:38, Mt 16:24, Mt 19:21, Lk 9:23, Lk 14:27, Jn 21:19, and Jn 21:22. The 2 Johanine references are by the risen Jesus to Peter. The others are prior to the crucifixion in various contexts, beginning with the initial call to the first disciples. What did he mean? The overall context was that Jesus was teaching a new way, one might say a new religion, that disputed the legalistic practices and hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders of the day, especially the Pharisees, scribes, and chief priests of the temple, but also the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead in the last days. The others did so believe, but Jesus, himself a Jew, saw through the self righteousness and shallowness of these leaders and claimed for himself a deeper Truth.

To people at that time, "follow me" was a risky choice to break with tradition and become a member of a group of people who had no official religious authority. Jesus claimed his authority directly from God. It was a radical choice for people to make. Today, it would be roughly like choosing between a well established religious denomination versus someone starting a new radical religious movement. Actually, it was more dramatic than that. Religious fanatics today are normally not killed unless they first create violence. Back then, Jesus was killed just for openly disagreeing with the religious leaders too many times. "Follow me" was a risky, radical statement that was often associated by Jesus with another statement, "take up your cross", which meant to sacrifice and risk death for a cause.

In modern history, one example of "taking up your cross" might have been Martin Luther King, whose fight against segregation put his life in danger, not to mention all the nights he spent in jail. Jesus’ venture was at least that dangerous. Taking up one’s cross is mentioned by Jesus several times in the gospels. Mk 8:34 says "he who wishes to come after me ... take up his cross and follow me". Mt 10:38 says "whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me". Lk 9:23 says "he who wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me". Note that these same references were mentioned above, so if bean counters wish to subtract 3 from this topical count, no problem.

These statements by Jesus are tough language. Remember the context. He seems to basically be saying here that people should consider the price to be paid before claiming to be a follower of Jesus. Does this mean that only martyrs and others who suffer terribly are saved? It could mean that, but I doubt that he did mean that. Jesus did not attempt to spout universal truth with every single word. He talked to people where they were in their own language. I don’t think he was condemning 99.993% of humanity to hell here. On the other hand, tough teachings like these are usually ignored by suburban mainstream churches. It makes people uncomfortable. Remember, Jesus did not start a new church. He started a movement which later became a new religion. It took guts. Tough talk was for tough times. He wasn’t a middle class suburbanite in a free country.

From what I have heard about the history of the time, crucifixions were commonplace in the Roman Empire. Whether by magical powers or by common sense, Jesus probably knew that his own crucifixion was a likely event if he continued to upset the authority figures. "Take up your cross" may very well have been a genuine phrase from the historical Jesus. Of course, it is possible that the authors of scripture may have "put these words in his mouth" after the fact, knowing how he died. If crucifixions were commonplace though, there is no particular reason to doubt the authenticity of the phrase. I will leave that argument to the historians and scholars. The meaning, not the exact phrase, is of prime importance. Clearly, Jesus was saying that following him would not be easy. Sacrifice and self denial would be necessary.

Additional references to "take up your cross and follow me" are Mk 10:21 (rich young ruler story), Mt 16:24 (almost identical to Lk 9:23), and Lk 14:27, which says "he who does not take up his cross and follow me cannot be a disciple to me ... consider the cost ...." Again, this does not necessarily mean that only martyrs and unjustly punished prisoners go to heaven. Take his words at literal face value. Pretend you are one of the twelve disciples. Jesus tells you that following him will cause you pain and suffering. Consider the cost. If you believe strongly enough in what he stood for, you will follow him, else you won’t. That may be all he was saying here. Let’s not read more into scripture than is there. On the other hand, he could have been saying more, whatever it may have been. Food for thought.

Jesus bore his cross to the place of crucifixion and lived out what he had taught the disciples about the price that had to be paid for teaching the Truth to people who wanted only to hear their own self inflicted lies. Mk 15:34 says "my God, my God, for this (crucifixion) I was spared" (Lamsa), or, "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (RSV). These were among Jesus’ last words on the cross. The different translations are due to Aramaic dialect. The other versions (from Greek) may have misinterpreted the original oral translation in Aramaic. Whichever version (if either) is correct, Jesus did live out his message about how difficult his path would be to follow. Bean counters might wish to subtract another reference or two. I couldn’t find a good place to put Mk 15:34, so I thought it might fit here. Did it?

OK, comfortable suburban mainline Protestant churchgoers, the next sub-topic is something you don’t see at work every day, martyrdom, losing your life to save it eternally, yes, death by violence for a cause. Would you like to be a martyr?

Not only was Jesus a martyr, but some of his words in all 4 gospels COULD BE interpreted as statements about martyrdom. With minor language differences, Mk 8:35, Mt 10:39, Mt 16:25, Lk 9:24, Lk 17:33, and Jn 12:25 all say that whoever wishes to save his life will lose it but he who loses his life for the sake of Jesus and/or the gospel will save it. Interpreted literally, this would mean that martyrs for the right cause inherit eternal life. Fine, but the converse is the problem, i.e., the first part of the above sentence. Carried to its logical literal extreme of interpretation, this could mean that those who are not martyrs will either go to hell or maybe just die with endless sleep or whatever "lose it" means here. That excludes about 99.999999999% of us from the kingdom of God, heaven, the next life, positive return trip to earth, or whatever you might believe re. eternal and/or afterlife. Is this what he meant? Note that it COULD HAVE been exactly what he meant, but I doubt it. Could my bias be showing here? Damn right, and so could yours! Do you want to get shot tomorrow morning? I don’t. Do you want to go to hell? I don’t either. Let’s hope it means something else.

Note that some of the references above follow previously mentioned references from the last 2 topics, and are part of the same dialog (bean counters may subtract 2 more). Mark and Luke use the phrase "wishes to save his life". Matthew says "is concerned about his life" while John says "loves his life". What was Jesus saying here? Given the context mentioned earlier, he likely was speaking of POTENTIAL martyrdom in the sense that followers of Jesus were risking their lives because of the power of the movement and its unpopularity among certain authority figures. He was quite definitely saying to those disciples then that if they chose the security of safety over the risk of following him, they would not experience the life (which may or may not have referred to eternal life) that discipleship with Jesus offered. He did not necessarily intend to universalize this exact meaning to all mankind forever as we western pseudo-philosophers often assume. Yet there really is a ring of universal truth to the statements, or at least I think there is. Does it also mean something else more universal? I don’t know.

Most preachers that I have heard on the subject have said that it is the concern or love for this life, to the exclusion of same for the next life, that Jesus was referring to here. "He who wishes to save his life" refers to people who will lie, compromise, stonewall, chicken out (preachers don’t say it that way), or waffle on the issues in order to gain short term security or safety. In other words, Jesus is talking about people who will not stand up for what is right. Standing up for what is right could possibly mean martyrdom, but in our civilized society, that rarely happens, and don’t forget to tithe, and see you next Sunday. Well, that’s what most preachers say, and, for once, maybe I agree with them, but don’t forget, they’re biased too. I think Jesus was referring here to an undue preoccupation with security and comfort, and was not necessarily telling people to go out and get yourself killed for Christ next week. Most preachers would also say that. Don’t forget, we could be wrong. Other more symbolic meanings are also possible, but not being a fully trained metaphysician, I will pass on that one.

Lk 14:26-33 says (among other things) that "he who comes to me and does not put aside his father ... and even his own life cannot be a disciple to me". This definitely goes down in our "tough teachings of Jesus" collection. Again, this could refer exclusively to martyrdom, but let us not be overly literal. Given that Jesus upheld the ten commandments which included "honor your father and mother", do you really think that he would contradict himself by telling people to put them aside? In my opinion, he was saying here that his gospel of Truth was even more important than honoring mother or father, and that if it came to a choice between, say, "staying on the farm to help Mom and Dad", versus following him, then in that situation, one should "put aside his father". Did I just recite the "S" word? Situation? As in SITUATION ETHICS, also known as the New Morality, a la Joseph Fletcher, a la 1960's liberal religious thought? That’s right, and I’ll say it again: I think that, to a degree, Jesus believed in situation ethics (call it what you want), and I think the above passages almost prove it! He who does not "put aside ... his own life" could potentially refer to martyrdom if the situation so warrants it, but it could also mean just a willingness to put inflated concern about the cares of the world aside for the sake of righteousness and truth, etc. Fundamentalists, take note: If you insist on absolutely literal interpretations on these passages, I will believe you when you prove it by your actions! I will be awaiting word of your martyrdom, and should you be killed for your beliefs, then I will take you more seriously.

Well, that’s it for martyrdom, or whatever it was. The next sub-section is about other great sacrifices, including selling your belongings and giving the money to the poor. Gee, where’s all the stuff about joy and peace? Hey, we covered faith already. This is good works, remember? This SACRIFICE is going to take awhile, but it’s not all bad. He talks about everlasting life to those who do it. Sorry, church friends, I can’t leave 21 references by Jesus out just because they make you squirm. That would be stonewalling it, one of those bad things I mentioned earlier. Rejoice in your suffering while reading the next few pages. Children and the kingdom are coming soon.

Mk 10:29-30, Mt 10:36-39, Mt 19:29, and Lk 14:26-27 all speak of leaving one’s family behind for the sake of the gospel. Those who are willing to do this will be rewarded but those unwilling are not worthy to be Jesus’ disciples. We have already discussed this at some length above. Could you imagine someone telling you that you must leave your family behind for some great cause? The only modern comparison is going out to war. Jesus was not drafting people for war. He was calling them for his mission. Lots of people do lots of good things, but few are willing to leave even family behind if necessary. Jesus was not speaking here (I don’t think) of those who wanted to leave family behind. He was speaking of great sacrifice.

In Mk 10:38, Jesus asks some of the disciples whether they can "drink the cup which I drink ...." If you check the context, you will see that he was referring to persecution, even death, as he had his own crucifixion in mind.

Jesus wanted people to give their all. Mk 12:43-44 and Lk 21:3-4 speak of the poor widow, who in her poverty, gave all she had to the temple, and though it was a small amount, how it was much greater than the larger but partial gifts of others. This was great sacrifice.

Mt 5:10-11 speaks of being blessed when you are PERSECUTED for the sake of justice ...." Lk 6:22 says "blessed are you when men hate you ... for the sake of the Son of Man". Mt 10:22-23 says "you will be hated by everybody (don’t take that too literally, please) because of my name; but he who endures until the end shall live ... when they persecute you in one city, flee to another". It is hard for most of us to imagine being persecuted and hated because of our religion. It is all too easy to be a Christian in American society, but there are still religious wars being fought all around the world right now. These religious wars are being fought for ethnic and provincial pride that have little if anything to do with Jesus’ message. I am told that Gandhi once said something to the effect that he could have been a Christian if not for all the Christians. So called Christians are more often the persecutors than the persecuted these days. Jesus’ message, though peaceful, was radical, and he expected people to be willing to pay a great price for the truth. The closest example I can think of in modern times was the non-violent civil rights movement of the 1960's, where people were thrown in jail, beaten, intimidated, and some even killed, yet they remained peaceful. Persecution is difficult for most of us to imagine, yet we are called by Jesus to endure it if that’s what’s necessary for the gospel to be proclaimed and lived.

Jesus did speak in absolute terms sometimes. Mt 12:30 says "they who are not with me are against me". Lk 11:23, referring to the persecution mentioned above, says very similar words. Remember, this was said in a context. Jesus was leading a radical movement. That sounds strange, doesn’t it? It was radical but peaceful, rather than what we have become accustomed to associate with radical. These were not necessarily words of universal truth for all situations, but Jesus wanted no fair weather friends in his situation, and he made the point abundantly clear more than once.

He also made the opposite point: Lk 9:50 says "he who is not against you is for you". Taken out of context, this could be a problem for the lukewarm apathetic bystander who knows not what is going on. Is this person for or against Jesus. The context of the latter reference was that someone had done good in Jesus’ name, so he was for you. In this radical mode, the bystander would be against you because he’s not for you. Remember, however, that Jesus often used figures of speech. He didn’t necessarily condemn every apathetic bystander to hell here, as some might have you believe. Remember the context. Jesus was not a philosopher. He was a prophet (at least) who was leading a movement. He had no time for idle by-standing.

Lk 12:9 says, "he who denies me before men I will deny before the angels of God": Another tough teaching of Jesus. Remember though, Peter denied Jesus 3 times, but I don’t think he went to hell, so there’s more to the story. Don’t forget, Jesus sometimes used figures of speech. Not every word is literal universal truth a la western philosophical thinking.

The sacrifice gets even tougher. Mt 13:44-45 speaks of selling everything you have to get to heaven. In fact, he says it twice here, in 2 different brief parables of the kingdom. Lk 14:33 says, "you who would not leave all possessions cannot be a disciple to me". We have previously discussed the rich young ruler story with another topic. Part of that scenario was Jesus telling the man to sell all his belongings and give to the poor. Jn 15:20 says "if they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you ...." Jn 16:2 says "for they will put you out of their synagogues and the hour will come that whoever kills you will think that he has offered an offering to God". Jn 15:13 says "there is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for the sake of his friends".

If you think that being a REAL Christian is easy, I would suggest you find someone who worked with Martin Luther King in the 1960's, who was beaten, thrown in jail, and called a nigger by violent segregationist bigots. Then ask this person to explain to you what Christianity is really all about, and to explain these passages, these tough teachings, in this section about sacrifice. I can only ask that I be granted to be least in the kingdom, because greatest should be reserved for those who have paid the price by their suffering and sacrifice. Not that suffering and sacrifice are intrinsically good, but they are sometimes necessary for a cause. The Old Testament speaks of sacrificing animals on the alter. Jesus talks of sacrificing comfort, money, and safety for the sake of truth and the gospel. The latter is much more difficult. Suburban optimists, kindly do some serious thinking about these last few pages. The good news is not all good. There is a price to pay, at least by some, and if we are lucky enough not to have to pay that price, we should at least be humbly grateful to those who have. The martyrs and suffering servants of Christianity are owed an astronomical debt of gratitude from the rest of us.

I could find no better place to put this brief sub-topic, which is loosely related to the main topic here. Jn 8:31 says "if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples". Jn 8:51 says "... whoever obeys my word shall never see death". This is generally the same theme as above, though not quite as tough a message. Again, reward is attached to those who stick with Jesus.

In spite of the fact that no children say anything in the accounts of Jesus’ life, he mentions children, always in a good light, several times in the gospels. Mk 9:37 says that whoever receives a child receives Jesus and therefore God, who sent Jesus. Mt 18:5-6 says it slightly differently: "He who will welcome one like this little child in my name welcomes me ...." Mt 10:42 says "whoever gives a drink (of water) to one of these little ones ... shall never lose his reward". Lk 9:48 says similarly that "everyone who receives a little child like this one in my name receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me; for whoever is least among you, let him be great". Exactly what Jesus meant here by "receive in my name" is not perfectly clear. This could refer to child baptism, but it seems he would have used the word, baptize, if that were the case, since he used it more than once. More likely, it just refers to loving and being nice to little children, but what does the "in my name" part mean? In at least one of the cases above, the context was that the disciples had scolded a child because they thought the child was in the way or bothering Jesus. "In my name" could mean nothing more than to invite the children to come to you as Jesus did. I see no evidence that Jesus believed in magical powers of names and numbers.

Mt 18:10 says "... do not despise one of these little ones ... their angels always see the face of my Father in heaven". Without getting into what angels may be right now, suffice it to say that this is a very beautiful passage. Mk 9:42 and Mt 18:6 give stern warnings. Mk 9:42 says that "whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were tied around his neck and he were thrown into the sea". Mt 18:6 says the same thing, but Matthew says "whoever misleads one of these little ones" instead of the part about causing one to stumble. This sounds like a hell threat, but the word is not used. Anyone who would mislead, lie to, or deceive a child is quite low on the moral totem pole. More generally, it probably refers to any kind of mistreatment of children, although it may also refer more specifically to telling children not to believe in Jesus. Fundamentalists like that last interpretation, but remember, he is saying these words in a context, people are standing around listening, he is having a debate with hypocritical Pharisees, and a child is present. He probably did issue a warning to anyone who would try to brainwash the children into thinking that Jesus was a bad man or whatever. This does not necessarily mean that all Buddhists must have millstones around necks and be thrown in the ocean because they teach their children something other than belief in Jesus. Jesus was not a bigot, and he probably would not appreciate the modern day Pharisees of right wing Christianity any more than he did the old Jewish ones.

Mt 19:14 says to "allow the little children to come to me ... for the kingdom of Heaven is for such as these". More specifically, all 3 synoptic gospels (Mk 10:14-15, Mt 18:3, and Lk 18:16-17) say that one must receive the kingdom as a child in order to enter it. Mark’s version says "... the kingdom of God is for such as these ... whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child shall not enter it". Luke’s rendition is similar. Matthew says "unless you CHANGE and BECOME LIKE little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven". Many a sermon has been preached about what this means. Jesus didn’t really say. Children are innocent: They know that they don’t know lots of things, and they ask lots of questions. They tend to trust their parents somewhat blindly before they grow older. Jesus was probably referring to this kind of innocent trust in God that children often have more so than adults. The kingdom, which we will look at closely later, is not something like a math problem that can be figured out and solved by those with much education. It is a matter of the heart, the right brain, an area where children may be more qualified than adults. However, Jesus did not specifically say that. Theoretically, he could have meant that if you don’t wet your diaper, you go to hell. I seriously doubt this is the case, but Jesus did not interpret these particular sayings in scripture for us, he just said them.

Mt 11:25 and Lk 10:21, which I will quote here, both say "... thou (God) didst hide these things from the wise and men of understanding, and revealed them to children". Again, this is the heart aspect of his teachings, not a logic problem that can be learned by education. Fundamentalists love these passages because they claim that Jesus taught us not to think. I have actually heard preachers tell people to stop thinking, that all thinking is rationalizing, and that people should stop thinking and obey God’s word (as interpreted by them). Can you imagine the fun Adolph Hitler would have had with that logic? Jesus didn’t say not to think! In fact, he challenged people to think by pointing out occasional inconsistencies among the testimonies of the Pharisees. Jesus was saying here that rational thinking was not the key to the kingdom, which is true, but he didn’t say not to think about religious matters. Perhaps the best suggestion would be not to think about fundamentalists. Nonetheless, the rational mind, though valuable, does not provide trust, faith, and love. It does not take a genius to behold the precious sweetness of a little child. Some things in this world are beyond rational thought.

This is the largest topic of all, and the sub-topics (in italics) are broken down further into groups.

The sub-topics are what it’s like, who goes there, and when/where it is.

Mark calls it the kingdom of God, as does Luke usually, although Luke also calls it the kingdom of Heaven sometimes. Matthew calls it the kingdom of Heaven. John calls it the kingdom of God sometimes but also seems to be referring to it in non-specific references. I will refer to it here as the kingdom.

Jesus does not precisely define it as a state of mind, a location, or whatever. He talks about it, often in figures, probably more than anything else. We will look at his references to see if we can understand what he meant. Remember the context. This was pre-scientific man: The earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, heaven was a physical location just beyond the stars, hell was a fire under the earth, and if you sailed out too far, you might fall off the edge. Jesus never said any of this. He either assumed it, or he knew it was false and didn’t say anything, or maybe he wasn’t concerned about it because he was concerned with spiritual rather than physical realities.

IT GROWS FROM SMALL TO LARGE

The parable of the mustard seed is in Mk 4:30-32, Mt 13:31, and Lk 13:18-19. This, the smallest of all seeds, according to Jesus, becomes greatest, and birds settle under it. Another parable in Mt 13:33 says that the kingdom is like leaven, which makes the bread rise, such as for a cake (unleavened bread is thin like a wafer). Presumably, this means that the kingdom ends up larger than it starts out, as the mustard seed parable implies. Also, there is a "last will be first" message implicit here. In fact, that may well be the primary meaning of the mustard seed parable, i.e., you seem small now (no earthly fame) but will loom large in the kingdom.

THE LAST WILL BE FIRST

Mk 10:31 says that "many who are first shall be last, and the last first". This particular reference does not specify the kingdom. It refers generally to the world to come. Lk 13:28-29 is more specific: "They will come from the east ... and sit down in the kingdom of God ... some who are last who will be first, and there are some who are first who will be last". There are 2 references in Matthew. Mt 19:30 says the same as Mk 10:31, but Mt 20:1-16 is a parable, not found in the other gospels, about laborers, all paid the same total amount of money, some for more hours, and some for fewer hours. In verse 16 are 2 familiar quotations, "even so the last shall be first, and the first last; for many are called, but few are chosen". I will not attempt to interpret that last saying for now, but the main point of the parable (the punch line, so to speak) seems to be that the last will be first and vice versa. I have heard it said that there will be lots of surprises in heaven, meaning that some people who we might think would not be there just might be, and vice versa. Jesus was a friend to the poor and down trodden, and these sayings are further evidence of it. What is the kingdom like? The last will be first, and this was said before democracy or socialism either one.

NO MARRIAGE IN THE RESURRECTION, LIKE ANGELS

The passages in this section might not be referring to the kingdom at all, but I put them here because they seem to be. In response to some shuck and jive from the Sadducees, who did not believe in resurrection, Jesus discusses the resurrection of the dead, which may or may not be the same thing as the kingdom. The discourse is found in Mk 12:24-27, Mt 22:30-32, and the one with the fullest description, which I will quote, Lk 20:35-38: "But those who are worthy of the other world and the resurrection from the dead, neither take women in marriage nor are women given in marriage to them ... they cannot die again, because they are like angels; and they are sons of God ... God is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to him". Matthew and Mark say much the same thing, minus some of the details. Insofar as our question, "what is the kingdom like" is concerned (if this is a description of the kingdom), the answer would be that it is NOT like earth, preoccupied by physical bodies and sex. "They are like angels", whatever that means. It clearly means something other than the earthly physical existence with which we are familiar.

GREATER AND LESSER, RELATIVITY OF KINGDOM

As mentioned earlier with faith, Jesus seems to teach both absolutes and relatives about things. Picture an hour glass, thinnest in the middle, thick on both ends, with a chasm in the middle, i.e., a broken hour glass. There is an absolute division (sheep and goats, wheat and chaff, etc.) but also a relativity on both sides of the chasm. Perhaps the kingdom is like half of that broken hour glass insofar as the absolute versus relative question is concerned. There are 2 places where Jesus speaks of the relativity of the kingdom.

Mt 5:19 says that "whoever tries to weaken even the least of the commandments shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but anyone who observes them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven". At the end of a parable about servants being watchful and doing good until the master returns, Jesus says "... the servant who knows the wishes of his master, and does not make ready according to his wishes, will receive a severe beating; but he who does not know, and does what is worthy of punishment will receive a less beating; for to whomever more is given, of him more will be required".

Listen up, mentally healthy, upper-middle class Christians! He may be talking to you! Here we have not only the notion of relative punishments to fit the severity of the transgression, but an outright statement by Jesus that he expects more from the "have’s" than from the "have-not’s"! I find this totally logical, rational, and just, not like the popular notion that some lucky "borned-agins" get saved for an eternity of bliss while everyone else burns in hell for eternity. Jesus is speaking of the kingdom here, and he is speaking in relative terms that anyone should be able to understand. He’s being fair - good common sense - not some theological nonsense. We will get what we deserve, period. No magical salvation by going to mass, joining the Baptists, or going to a Billy Graham crusade. No salvation by faith alone without works. We will get what we deserve. Keep in mind, however, that we have not yet covered forgiveness. There is another side to the coin, but we’re not there yet, so be patient.

KINGDOM AS LASTING, ETERNAL

Several references describe the kingdom as eternal and/or lasting. Mt 6:19-21 says to "lay up treasures in heaven where rust ... does not destroy ... for where your treasure is, there also is your heart". Since Matthew referred to the kingdom as the kingdom of heaven, one would assume that’s what he was referring to here by heaven.

The other references are all in John. They are indirect references which do not specifically speak of the kingdom, so one could argue that these do not refer to the kingdom. I grouped them here for lack of a better place to put them, and they seem in a very general way to refer to the kingdom. Jn 6:27 says not to labor "for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to life everlasting, which the Son of Man will give you ...." Just after that, Jn 6:32-35 says "... my Father gives you the true bread from heaven ... he who comes to me shall never hunger". This one does use the word, "heaven", so it is more specific, but John did not normally refer to the kingdom as that of heaven. Finally, Jn 17:3 says "and this is life eternal, that they (the disciples?) might know thee, that thou art the only true God ...." (Jesus is praying to God here). In all three instances, either "eternal" and/or "everlasting" is used to describe what I assume is the kingdom, although we should be open to the possibility that the kingdom might refer to something else. More on that later.

THE KINGDOM ADMINISTERED BY FORCE

Mt 11:12 says that "from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has been administered by force, and only those in power control it". I have no earthly idea what this means. The time period in question is rather short. Most experts say that the entire account of the gospel of Matthew, except for the birth narrative, took place within one calender year. At the beginning of his Galilean ministry, John the Baptist was still alive. He died in prison during Jesus’ ministry. Was he talking about something on earth? The kingdom of heaven administered by force? I guess he was referring to the world beyond. Since the other 3 gospels leave it out, I’m not planning to lose sleep over it. I don’t think it was central to his message.

KINGDOM HAS GREAT VALUE, SELL ALL TO GET IT

Both references on this idea come from Matthew. Mt 13:44 says that the "kingdom of Heaven is like hidden treasure in a field ... the man sold all he had and bought the field". Similarly, Mt 13:45-46, following up, says that the "kingdom of Heaven is like a merchant seeking good pearls ... he sold everything he had ...." The other gospels are silent on this point, but few would argue that there is contrary evidence, i.e., the kingdom is not worth much? It stands to reason that the kingdom is worth a great deal, and it is not unlike Jesus to tell someone to sell all they have. He said it on at least one other occasion, the rich young ruler story, that is in 3 of the gospels.

WHAT BOUND ON EARTH

Mt 18:19 says that whatever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and likewise for releasing. What does this mean? It suggests a continuum of sorts. Perhaps the kingdom is not totally other worldly, but can be experienced, at least to a degree, in this life. As we will see later, Jesus also said that the kingdom has come near to you and the kingdom is in your midst. Exactly what Jesus meant here is not clear, but there is not a stark contrast between the kingdom of heaven and earth, but rather, some similarity.

LEAST IN KINGDOM GREATER THAN JOHN

Lk 7:28 says that "... even the least person in the kingdom of God is greater than John the Baptist". Is he saying that John the Baptist is not in the kingdom of God? Here, the kingdom seems to take on a more other worldly quality. John was probably still alive when Jesus spoke these words. Perhaps he meant that the other world (the kingdom) was inhabited by spirits (without physical bodies), whereas John, at that time, still had a physical body. Granted, Jesus did not say this - it is one possible interpretation. It would seem that another possible interpretation would put John the Baptist in a bad light. There is no evidence that would suggest this, but would it be possible that John did something (not recorded in scripture) that would prompt a negative statement from Jesus? Certainly possible, but not probable. Therefore, the former interpretation seems more likely. There may be other interpretations not mentioned here.

NOT OF THIS WORLD

If you needed a reason to accept the former interpretation versus the latter re. the above paragraph, look at Jn 18:36: "... my kingdom is not of this world ...." Before we get too other worldly though, please understand that the author of John used the word, world, to refer to the lower elements of our physical existence on the planet, i.e., selfishness, greed, hypocrisy, dishonesty, violence, etc. Therefore, "not of this world" does not necessarily mean that the kingdom is totally removed from physical life on planet earth. In fact, such a view would contradict other statements by Jesus about the kingdom. Again, he seems to be speaking of a spiritual existence; whether here and now, other worldly, or both; as contrasted against worldly sins and concerns. This is, in fact, a dominant theme in the gospel of John.

MANY ROOMS

Jn 14:2 says that "in my Father’s house are many rooms ... I go to prepare a place for you". The term, kingdom, is not specifically used here, but it sounds like a heaven of sorts, so I put it here in this section. What does it mean? We don’t all have to be the same to inherit the kingdom? I’ve heard that one before. Could it mean that we won’t have to be in the same room with another saint that we don’t like? I doubt it, but all things are possible, right? The poetic quality of the statement probably means a lot more than the correct literal interpretation.

OK, WHAT IS IT LIKE?

It starts out small and grows very large. The last will be first. People there are like angels who do not marry. Some are greater than others in the kingdom. It is lasting, eternal. It is worth so much that you might want to sell all your possessions to have it. What is bound on earth is bound there also. The least there are greater than John the Baptist. It is not worldly. There are many rooms. Sounds like heaven to me, or at least something like that.

This is getting terribly traditional, isn’t it? Sometimes scripture makes conservatives squirm and sometimes it makes liberals do likewise. Some people don’t go there? Isn’t that anti-universalist?

Well, let’s look at what Jesus said first. There are no less than 37 references on this sub-topic, more than any other sub-topic. There is little repetition of ideas, sort of a myriad of statements, so I’m simply listing them in order, starting with common material, then Mark, then Matthew, then Luke, then John.

Mk 10:14-15, which we previously looked at under the topic of children, says that one should receive the kingdom like a child. Mt 18:3-6 and Mt 19:14 have very similar statements by Jesus.

Lk 18:16-17 goes so far as to say that "... the kingdom of heaven is for those who are like these ... he who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter into it". It is interesting that we have "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" both in the same passage. They seem to refer to the same thing, although some might argue otherwise.

Many a sermon has been preached on this topic of receiving the kingdom as a child. Children

are very dependent on others, whereas adults are more self sufficient. There may be other interpretations, but it would seem that the meaning here has to do with one’s dependence on God. The kingdom is offered as a gift from God. Children love to be given presents whereas adults sometimes feel guilty about having received a gift of more value than the one given. Pride, over-confidence, and egotism get in the way of God’s offering the kingdom to a person, or more accurately, in the way of the person’s ability to accept the gift. Those who receive the kingdom as children shall enter it. These statements by Jesus seem somewhat in conflict with previous statements which seem to promote works righteousness.

After a scribe had expressed agreement with Jesus about the greatest commandment (love God with all your heart ...), Jesus says in Mk 12:34 to the scribe, "you are not far from the kingdom of God". Note that he says "not far from"rather than "have received". Jesus is perhaps stating some preconditions here, namely acknowledging the importance and goodness of God, and willingness to affirm love as an ethical value. These things bring one close to the kingdom.

Mt 5:3 says that the humble will inherit the kingdom of heaven. Again, vain pride gets in the way. Being proud of someone else is no problem. Most of us don’t get someone else mixed up with God, we get our own egos mixed up with God. So we should not be proud of ourselves when we’ve done a good job? Yes and no. Being proud of the work that one has done is one thing, probably OK in most cases. In a sense, even being proud of yourself for that work may not be so bad. We need self esteem. Without it, we tend to hate ourselves and others as well. However, there is a line that gets crossed all too often. When pride becomes egotism and arrogance, it is obviously evil. Where is the line? Well, use the analogy of a football team. When it has confidence and willingness to work hard together and follow the rules, it usually wins, but what happens when it gets over-confident, sloppy, disorganized, lazy, and/or breaks the rules? It loses, usually big time. I can’t explain where the line gets crossed. I just know it does. How to be humble and still have self esteem is not easy to explain. Like a football game, it has to be experienced to be understood. There is pride and there is pride. Vain pride that crosses over the line is a hindrance toward receiving the kingdom. OK, that’s what I said. Jesus said that the humble will inherit the kingdom. He didn’t say the rest of this paragraph.

It gets tougher. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus expected perfection. Mt 5:10 says "blessed are those persecuted for the sake of justice, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". So I’ve got to go out and illegally protest social injustice and get thrown in jail in order to receive the kingdom? Well, he didn’t say that those who are not persecuted will not receive it, only that those who did would. The saying is a bit scary though, not good news for apathetic bystanders, which is what most of us are most of the time.

Continuing the Sermon on the Mount in Mt 5:11-12, Jesus says that reward will be given in heaven when one is persecuted for Jesus’ sake. Again, it doesn’t say that those not persecuted all go to hell, but this persecution stuff is not very pleasant to dwell on. Of course, the winter at Valley Forge, the civil rights beatings in Mississippi, and the crucifixion were no picnics either, not to mention being Jewish during World War II. Presumably, Jesus is referring to the willingness to forego persecution when the cause is just and the situation is right. He did not seem to be a masochist who enjoyed suffering for the sake of suffering. Nonetheless, these tough teachings are a concern for apathetic middle class bystanders.

As we will see later, Jesus had little use for pompous hypocrites, who at that time and place included a Jewish group called the Pharisees. Mt 5:20 says that unless you are more righteous than the Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. For the first time so far, he specifically says that somebody will be left out, omitted, skipped. This is not universal salvation, at least not in this first go-round. Well, at least he didn’t rule out the bystanders and spectators.

If you were feeling comfortable about your chances of going to heaven, just wait until you read Mt 5:46, where Jesus says that if you love only your friends and not your enemies, you will have no reward in heaven. Oops. That just killed the by-standers, the fairly-gooders, and most of the rest of us. Taken out of context at face value, this could mean that only people like Mother Theresa and a few martyrs go to heaven while all the rest of us go to hell. Many of us may try to love our enemies, but doing is harder than trying. The sub-conscious mind still fears and hates the enemy even while the conscious mind tries to love and forgive. Then, of course, there are many who claim to love their enemies, but hate what they do, and, well, talk is cheap. When push comes to shove, there are few if any people in this world who truly love their enemies. Professing is one thing. Doing is quite another. Most of us might be able to love one enemy for awhile, but then something happens, and the love either flares back to hate or fades out to apathy. Most people are not honest when they talk about loving their enemies. Loving your enemies is easier said than done, and most don’t even try.

The Sermon on the Mount is a very idealistic monologue whose primary theme is "be ye therefore perfect". I’ve never met anyone who is perfect, and I’m not even sure if Jesus was perfect himself. He never claimed to be. I view the Sermon on the Mount as an ideal, a goal to strive for, rather than a list of rules for getting to heaven. This is where Jesus says that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. Yet later on he says that you are not saved by the law, but by repentance and forgiveness. If every word in Matthew is literal universal truth, we may as well get drunk and stoned for the rest of our lives, because we’re all going to hell, or at least that’s one rational conclusion. I think 2 things about this: First, I don’t think Jesus meant every word to be literal and universal. He used figures of speech as well as figurative language like parables. He responded to individual statements and situations. Not every word was supposed to be the final word on the subject forever. Second, I suspect that the author of Matthew may have added things (probably unintentionally) onto what Jesus actually said. As beautiful and idealistic as the Sermon on the Mount is, it’s only in Matthew. Parts of it are in Luke, but none whatsoever in Mark or John. The author of Matthew may have gotten carried away by Jesus’ affirmation about fulfilling and perfecting the law of Moses to the point of putting a few words in Jesus’ mouth. We’ll probably never know (in this life), but I see much of this material, like loving enemies, as goals and ideals, rather than "you’d better do this or else". To each his own interpretation, but I don’t think that a loving God condemns people to hell just because we haven’t perfected the art of loving our enemies. Again though, that’s me, not necessarily Jesus. Figure Mt 5:46 out for yourself. It’s tough teachings of Jesus time.

Continuing with Matthew, the next "who goes there" reference is Mt 6:1-4, where Jesus says to "give alms secretly so that God will reward you". This does not specifically say kingdom or heaven, but seems to refer to it. The context is that the Pharisees, scribes, and such would show off how much money they gave the temple in order to impress people. Jesus said that people like this already have their reward, namely ego gratification from public praise. The kingdom, then, is for those who give quietly without bragging about it or showing it off.

Continuing the dialog, what Jesus says in Mt 6:5-6 is very similar: "Pray in secret for your reward ...." Again, the hypocrites would pray in the synagogues to impress people. They already had their reward. This is the same idea as the paragraph above.

Mt 7:13-14 says to "enter in through the narrow door ... how difficult is the road which leads to life, and few are those who are found on it". Lk 13:28-29 says about the same thing in response to a question whether only a few would be saved. No specific "kingdom" word is used, but the passage seems to refer to it. This one is a bit scary and troublesome. It is often interpreted to mean that most people will go to hell. Since we haven’t gotten to the hell topic yet, let’s reserve judgment on that for awhile. Some say that this refers to the many ways that people can stray from the kingdom, and the narrow door represents the one way (God) to enter it, so that most may indeed enter it. In the context of which Jesus was speaking, it seems to me that he was indeed saying that most people at this time and place would fail to see the light and follow Jesus to this kingdom. He didn’t necessarily say they would all go to hell though. In fact, very few people at that very time did follow Jesus. The majority had him crucified. The narrow door analogy does make sense when referring to people.

Slightly later, Jesus says the following in Mt 7:21-23: "Not everyone who merely SAYS to me, my Lord ... will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who DOES the will of my Father in heaven ... many will say ‘did we not prophesy in your name’ ... I have never known you ..." The kingdom is for doers, not talkers. Talk is cheap. Action speaks. Who goes there? He who does.

In Mt 7:24-27, Jesus compares the kingdom to a rock: "Whoever hears these words of mine and does them, he is like a wise man who built his house on rock ... rain and wind do not destroy ...." He goes on to say the reverse about those who hear but do not do. Again, the kingdom is for doers, not talkers.

Mt 8:11-12 says that "many will come from east and west ... in the kingdom of heaven, but sons of the kingdom (of Israel) will be put out ...." Jesus was probably referring here to the fact that many Jews would reject him and not enter the kingdom, whereas many Gentiles would enter it. This is one thing that made Jesus so unpopular. Prior to Jesus, the notion of Gentiles sharing the kingdom of heaven with Jews was almost unheard of in Israel. This is what got his home town folks in Nazareth so upset at him early on. Refer back to section on the chosen people for details. So the kingdom is not for Jews only. That sounds obvious to us today, but in Jesus’ time in Galilee, it was comparable to the notion of a lesbian U.S. President today.

Who else goes there? Mt 13:52 says that "... every scribe who is converted to the kingdom of heaven is like a man who is a householder, who brings out new and old things from his treasures". I will not attempt a complete interpretation of this one. Most scribes were opposed to Jesus, in fact, they were among those most harshly criticized by Jesus, and they had a big part in the crucifixion. He seems here to be pointing out the wisdom of the few scribes who were willing to listen to him.

In Mt 16:19, Jesus says to Peter, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven". This, of course, is the origin of the belief that Saint Peter will be manning the gate after you die, and either let you in, or else. Jesus probably intended a much more symbolic meaning. Peter, before Paul, would become the leader of the new Christian church, and Jesus probably saw this potential in him beforehand. The keys to the kingdom probably refer to the early church, which, after Jesus, became the focal point of the gospel about the kingdom. Remember that Peter would deny Jesus before the cross, and Jesus knew it. Nonetheless, he made this statement. Jesus knew that Peter was not perfect, yet he gave him the keys to the kingdom anyway. This is further evidence that the "be ye therefore perfect" from the Sermon on the Mount was an ideal rather than an ultimatum. Otherwise, how could we even presume that Peter is in the kingdom at all?

Another similar passage is Lk 22:28-30, where Jesus, praising the disciples, says, among other things, that "just as my Father has promised me, a kingdom ... you will sit on seats and judge the twelve tribes of Israel". Again, literalists take this to mean that 12 men will be in the cosmic Supreme Court of Israel sitting on golden chairs looking out on the streets paved with gold, etc. The exact symbolic spiritual meaning is not certain, but I doubt if we take our chairs with us when we pass on.

The next reference is Mt 19:29-30, which says that "every man who leaves houses ... brothers ... for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life ...." Again here, we see the theme of sacrifice, standing up for the truth, and DOING, as opposed to talking. See previous references for more detail.

Mt 21:31 says that "... even the tax collectors and harlots WILL PRECEDE YOU INTO THE KINGDOM of God". This saying is interesting on several fronts. First, it is one of the few times in Matthew where the term, "kingdom of God", rather than "kingdom of heaven", is used. Secondly, what is the true meaning here? Strictly literally, it says that tax collectors and harlots will enter the kingdom, and then later, the chief priests and elders will enter it. Most traditional Christians, especially bedrock fundamentalists who insist on literalism except when they don’t like it, would say that what this really means is that the tax collectors and harlots, because they know they sin, are more likely to repent and be saved into the kingdom, than are the hypocritical chief priests and elders who wanted Jesus dead, thought they were perfect, and would not repent. If we accept this statement in purely literal terms, which is what good fundamentalists are supposed to do, it implies universal salvation, i.e., if these, the worst, all enter the kingdom, then everyone must enter it eventually. The strictly literal interpretation of the English words yields mystical universalism, not fundamentalism. For the Greek text, kindly consult someone else’s book.

In light of Jesus’ other statements about the hypocrites (to come later), it is doubtful though possible that Jesus was speaking of universal salvation here. It just goes to show how strict literalism can lead to a folly of self contradictions that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is no wonder that many fundamentalists teach their flock not to think! See how much confusion it causes? Anyway, there will be tax collectors like Bill Clinton and harlots like Madonna (if they repent) in the kingdom, but no chief priests like Pat Robertson, unless you’re a literalist universalist, in which case, Oral Roberts will enter the kingdom after Clinton and Madonna. OK, I jest and exaggerate a bit, but maybe you get the point. Whatever these words of Jesus mean exactly, he was addressing them to hypocrites, and he made it clear many times that these so called religious leaders of his day were the moral bottom of the barrel, even worse than prostitutes and the hated Jewish tax collectors who worked for the Romans. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

As a further digression, consider the following possibility for today. Liberal Democrats are like the Romans (collecting our taxes and secularizing our lives), conservative Republicans are like the Pharisees and chief priests (they condemn others, they’re morally legalistic, they think they can tell everyone else how to act, and they think they’re better than us), while Jesus and his disciples are largely unrepresented in American society. Is it true? Back to the Kingdom.

In the parable of the marriage feast in Mt 22:2-14, Jesus socks it to the religious leaders again. In verse 8, he says that those who were invited (Jews) were unworthy. In Mt 22:9-10, he says to "go ... to the main roads and whomever you may find ... bad and good ..." and invite them to the feast. This is clearly an invitation to Gentiles, which he was reluctant to do at first, to enter the kingdom by following Jesus. He won no popularity contests with the Pharisees and chief priests by saying stuff like this. Today’s Pharisees try to kill with words rather than crucifixions, but the spirit seems about the same to me. Next time a preacher threatens you with hell, think about the possibility that the preacher may be the one to worry about. Don’t use it as an excuse for your own shabby living, but think about it.

Mt 25:14-30 contains the parable of the talents. In summary, the two people with the 2 and 5 talents invested them wisely whereas the person with the 1 talent hid it because he was afraid and lazy. Then Jesus again recites the previously discussed "them that got gets" lesson (that’s not the way he said it) that has been previously discussed in conjunction with ears to hear. This parable has been misinterpreted to death by preachers to the point of nausea. The talent refers to a coin, not a talent like art or athletics. Also, it is a parable! The point is not to use our talents for a good purpose, that’s the "nice" misinterpretation of the parable based on the erroneous biblically uneducated use of the word, talent, in the Bible. The parable is troublesome because it seems rather mean on the surface. Jesus seems to be saying that lazy bystanders will lose everything while aggressive hustlers will inherit the kingdom. Hopefully, that is not what it means. It probably refers back again to the business about "ears to hear", because this is the context in which the other "them that got gets" quotes are made, but this is not clear. Frankly, I know a lot more about what this parable does NOT mean than I do about what it means. If you have an alternate interpretation, kindly be sure that you understand that a biblical talent is a coin worth about a penny, not an ability to slam dunk or write poetry! This parable seems to be one of those tough teachings of Jesus that most preachers like to avoid or misinterpret. The relation to the kingdom here is that the reward obtained by those with the 2 and 5 talents would represent the kingdom. The poor sucker who hid it in his trunk got locked out.

Speaking of tough teachings, get a load of Lk 9:62. Someone had just asked Jesus if he could go find someone to watch his house first, and then come back and follow Jesus later. Jesus replied by saying that "no man who puts his hand on the plough handle and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God". Sure glad I’m not a farmer! Whatever the symbolic meaning is here, it does not sound very nice. Of course, most of us are beset with this notion that Jesus was effeminate, meek, mild mannered, and perfect. He never claimed to be any of these. Maybe he really did mean this to be a radical warning to those sayers who don’t do, i.e., you better darn well mean business if you plan on following me, because you’re likely to die because of it. An alternate interpretation is that Jesus referred to himself, not the farmer fellow, as the holder of the plough, and that he (Jesus) had his face set toward Jerusalem, and therefore could not hesitate to wait for this fellow who needed some time before following Jesus. This less nasty sounding interpretation, which I agree with, is discussed by D.T. Niles in his book, Who is This Jesus? (pages 67 & 71).

The disciples (except Judas Iscariot, I guess) are in the kingdom. In Lk 10:20, Jesus says to (at least some of) the disciples, "... but rejoice because your names are written in heaven". Well, literalists could argue that it says "names are written in", not "souls are contained in". No, they wouldn’t argue that, and neither would I. Nice to have an easy one for a change. Who goes there? At least the Rock, the Sons of Thunder, and a few other old Galilean fishermen!

Lk 18:18-25 gives 1 or 2 more kingdom references. This is the story of the rich young ruler found in the synoptic gospels, although Luke does not say that he is either young or a ruler, just that he had much wealth. Jesus tells the man to sell his belongings and give the money to the poor, and then follow him to inherit life everlasting. Afterward, he tells the disciples that it will be easier for a rope (Lamsa) or camel (RSV) to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. Who goes there? Apparently not Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, or Ross Perot? He also follows that statement with the line about all things being possible with God, so let’s have mercy on old Ross, young Bill, and who’s that other guy?

The remaining references about who goes to the kingdom are from John. The first one is more like a ticket for admission. Jn 3:3 says that "if a man is not born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God". Similarly, Jn 3:5 (continuing the discourse) says that "if a man is not born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God". Of course, the fundamentalists love to talk about being born again. Lamsa’s interpretation of The Peshitta has a footnote with Jn 3:3, indicating that the correct meaning of the translation from the Northern Aramaic idiom that Jesus spoke, is that "born again" means to change one’s thoughts and habits. It has more to do with how you live your life than with getting saved on the alter. No problem for going to the alter if it really changes your life, but changing your life is what "born again" means, and there’s nothing here about it happening only once, or that it is absolute, and there is certainly nothing said here about joining some church. Those who are born again will enter the kingdom.

Jn 3:13 offers a confusing statement: "No man has ascended to heaven except him who came down from heaven, even the Son of Man (Jesus) who is in heaven". If heaven and the kingdom are the same thing, which it seems to be generally in the gospels, what could this mean? Jesus has told us already that certain types of people will go to heaven. Jn 3:13 seems to say that Jesus is the only person who will go there, because he came from there. There are two possibilities:

1) Jesus is the only one who has ascended, others go some other way, or

2) Heaven and the kingdom (of heaven) are not the same thing.

I suppose it is also possible that the true meaning of Jn 3:13 is some mystic right brain reality that makes no logical common sense. This could be exactly the case, as John has some mystical Gnostic tendencies. Frankly, I don’t know what Jn 3:13 means. Do you?

Jn 4:14 is obviously symbolic: "But whoever drinks of the water which I give him shall never thirst; but the same water which I give him shall become in him a well of water springing up to life everlasting". The word, "kingdom", is not used here, but I place the reference here because "life everlasting" seems to refer to the kingdom, although it might not. The water here probably stands for the Holy Spirit, although that is open to debate. I like to think of God as analogous to water, both inside of us, part of our bodies, and beyond us like a river or ocean. This is not exactly what Jesus meant here though. The living water symbolizes the life in Christ. Jn 4:14 says it far better than I can explain it. Who goes there? He who drinks the living water.

Jn 5:24 says that "... he who ... believes him who has sent me (God, the Father) has everlasting life; and he does not come before the judgment, but he passes from death to life". This sounds nice. Note, however, that it does not say "he who believes IN God" (that God exists), it more or less says "he who believes God". Who would this be? Probably, the same people that follow Jesus and also believed Moses re. the 10 commandments and such (see prior sections on Mosaic law and justice/judgment).

Similarly, Jn 6:47 says that "he who believes in me (Jesus) has eternal life", presumably the kingdom of God. In Jn 6:54-58, Jesus indicates that he who eats of his body and drinks of his blood will have the kingdom of God. This is obviously symbolic, as the disciples were not cannibals. The symbolism is the same as the familiar Lord’s Supper with the bread and wine.

Notice that here Jesus does say "believe in me". Isn’t that interesting? Believe God but believe IN me (Jesus). The Pharisees believed IN God but not Jesus. Jesus says believe God (probably the Word) but believe IN this human being, Jesus of Nazareth. I’m not sure what the significance of this might be other than that many listeners believed in God but not Jesus. Presumably, these passages in John mean that those who believe in (eat and drink) Jesus will enter the kingdom.

Thus completes no less than 37 references about who goes to the kingdom. Isn’t it about time we try to figure out what it is?

IT IS NEAR YOU, IT IS WITHIN YOU

Much of the previous discussion has assumed or outright stated that the kingdom is an other worldly heaven, contrasted against life on earth. In fact, quite a few of the references cited in the previous sub-topic did not specifically say "kingdom", and when "heaven" or "everlasting life" were discussed, they were placed in that section alongside specific references to the kingdom. The rationale for this was the use, primarily by Matthew, of the phrase, "kingdom of heaven" (rather than of God), hence linking the terms, "heaven" and "kingdom of God" together.

There is another side of the coin here. In fact, one could argue that the kingdom is not some other worldly far off "heaven" at all, but is present right now on earth at this place. The next few references indicate this view.

Mt 4:17 simply says to "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is coming near". Does this mean that in 30 A.D. the world is about to end in preparation for the final judgment? It didn’t. Jesus seems to be saying here that the kingdom may be some event or condition on earth, but it isn’t perfectly clear. Mt 10:7 says that "the kingdom of heaven is near". Again, this could refer to a historical event or earthly situation, but the meaning is subject to question.

Lk 10:9 says to "heal those who are sick ... and say to them, ‘the kingdom of God is come near to you’." Following up, Lk 10:11 says (to those not receiving the disciples), "but know this, that the kingdom of God has come near to you". These passages are present and past tense, not far off future or even near future. It almost sounds as if Jesus and the disciples ARE the kingdom. Lk 11:20 says it again, the same words as Lk 10:9. Luke seems to stress more clearly than Matthew that the kingdom is close at hand, past and present as well as future.

Lk 16:16 is a strange verse which indicates that the law and prophets were until John the Baptist, but now the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone presses to enter it. Does this refer to heaven, the belief in an afterlife rather than the ancient Jewish belief that just reward eventually came in this life? Maybe, but it could also refer to something more immediate to the physically living.

Lk 17:20-21, in response to a Pharisee’s question about WHEN the kingdom of God would come, is one of the clearest and strongest statements by Jesus about the kingdom. This comes right before Jesus describes the days of the Son of Man (end of the world narrative) to the disciples. He says that the "kingdom of God does not come by observation ... neither will they say, ‘behold it is here or behold, it is there’, for behold, the kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU" (RSV says "in the midst of you", Lamsa and King James say "within you").

This does not sound like an other worldly description of heaven, up there, beyond the stars, in the future. This sounds like RIGHT NOW and RIGHT HERE. It either means that the kingdom is indeed WITHIN each person (or at least within some people), i.e., there is a spark of divinity, even God, inside each person, or it means that Jesus himself (on earth) IS the kingdom (standing in the midst of you). Do you have a third interpretation? I’d like to hear it.

What is the kingdom anyway? If it is spiritual in nature, rather than a specific time or place, the kingdom could be both here and now within a person and also include traditional heaven, other lives, and God knows what else. If the kingdom is like water, maybe there is a heaven ocean somewhere and sometime, also a Christ river very near on earth (even now), and also some water inside my own body (right now this moment). The argument about whether the kingdom refers to future heaven or earth right now could be a false argument. Maybe both are true.

Note the other part of Lk 17:20-21: It will "not come by observation". Jesus does not tell us precisely what the kingdom is. This drives scientists and computer programmers crazy. How can I possibly find something when I don’t even know what I’m looking for? Enter spiritual knowledge. Jesus spoke in figures, probably because there were no literal words in the language to adequately describe this kingdom.

Interestingly, this particular sub-topic contained NO references from either Mark or John. Does this throw the immediate presence of the kingdom into question? Perhaps a bit. Mark is the one who loves to say "immediately", but nowhere does it say anything about the kingdom being immediately with you. Also, John’s lack of comment cannot be explained. Also, it does not appear to come from "Q", the hypothetical second source of Matthew and Luke, because this material from the 2 gospels is not that similar. These could be theological additions by the authors, especially Luke, rather than genuine words of the historical Jesus. On the other hand, maybe Luke is just putting in some real stuff that the others left out, which is related to what he claims in his own introduction (Lk 1:1).

SEEK THE KINGDOM FIRST

Mt 6:33 says to "seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things (food, shelter, clothing, etc.) will be added to you". This is one of few places where Matthew refers to the kingdom as "of God" rather than "of heaven". The context of the statement, with "and his righteousness" after "God" may explain this. The phrase, "heaven and his righteousness" would not make sense.

In a sense, Jesus is talking about miracles here. The disciples tended to be very concerned about running out of food and such. Jesus kept telling them in different ways not to worry. Today, we usually talk of miracles of chance, divine coincidence, or divine order. It does not follow from scientific evidence and logic that a person seeking to serve God would "luckily" fall on good times, but many will testify to their personal experience being exactly that, and most don’t call it luck.

Another related reference is found in Lk 9:60. Someone had asked Jesus if he could take care of his father until he died before following Jesus. Jesus responds with, "let the dead bury their own dead; but you go and preach the kingdom of God". On the surface, this seems like a rather nasty statement, a tough teaching of Jesus to say the least. What would your reaction be if someone told you to leave your aging father to die in order to follow some mission? Jesus may have been using more symbolism here than most realize. The phrase, "let the dead bury their own dead" seems to be a figure of speech. "Dead" refers to those not seeking the kingdom, or as John would say, people who are "of the world". Perhaps this man’s dying father was not seeking the kingdom, or perhaps Jesus wasn’t actually telling the man to abandon his father. After all, he didn’t say, "let your father die", he said "let the dead bury their own dead". The figure of speech could have been for the purpose of making a point about spiritual life rather than as a means of telling the man to let his father die, and don’t even show up for the funeral. Whatever the case with the problematic point about burying the dead, Jesus was definitely saying here to seek the kingdom of God.

We have finally reached the end of the kingdom, and we have advanced to the beginning of the end. The next topic is the end time or last days. This is closely related to the kingdom. After looking at the end, we will return to the kingdom and look at some additional passages which seem to comment on possible relationships between the kingdom and the end time. As we saw in previous paragraphs, Jesus often speaks of the kingdom in present or even past tense. Not so for the end time, which is future tense for the most part.

There are about 40 references to what we might call the end time, last days, that day, or as theologians call it, the coming of the Parousia. Most references imply a futuristic time frame, even the end of the world. A few, however, do not. We will look at these first.

I have heard theologians argue that the Parousia didn’t come as expected after Jesus because it had already come with Jesus the first time. There are a few references which might support this point of view.

Mk 1:15, the first words of Jesus in Mark, says that "the time has come to an END, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel". If "end" here means the last days or end time, this implies not only that the "last days" were the time of Jesus, but also that the end time and the kingdom are one and the same with two names. Is this the case? The argument is weak. Mk 1:15 does not specifically say the "end time", it just says that the "time has come to an end". What time? Perhaps the time of awaiting the Messiah? It is not clear whether "end" refers here to the last days prophesied by Jesus in Mark’s 13th chapter. In fact, it probably does not, because if it did, wouldn’t the 13th chapter of Mark be at the beginning of the book instead of near the end?

The other 3 references are all in Matthew, and all are questionable, that is, are they really saying that the end time was the first coming? Mt 10:23 says that "... you shall not finish converting all the cities of the house of Israel, until the Son of Man returns". This sounds soon, not thousands or millions of years later. However, not all Jews converted to believing in Jesus. Even after Hitler tried to eliminate them from the face of the earth, there are still millions of Jews who do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, so the house of Israel still has not been converted, if this is what the phrase means. Therefore, the argument is weak that the time period here was 30-50 A.D.

Mt 23:39, uttered by Jesus on the first "Palm Sunday", says that "... from now you (Jerusalem) will not see me until you say, ‘blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’." This may refer to a second coming of sorts, or may refer to the resurrection. It is not clear enough to offer a strong argument for either view.

Mt 24:2 says "not a stone shall be left here ... which will not be torn down" (from the temple). This probably refers to the destruction of the temple which occurred during the crucifixion (storm, earthquake, or whatever it was when the curtain of the temple was torn in half). It does not say here that this refers to the end time, but it is located in Matthew right before a lengthy discussion by Jesus of the end time, which makes one wonder if this may refer to same. Nonetheless, the argument is quite weak, as is the case generally, for the position that the Parousia, end time, last days, or whatever you want to call it, that Jesus prophesied in Mark 13 and Matthew 24, has already come, and that it was the first coming and/or resurrection of Jesus.

Most references in this section are very general in nature, and really do not pinpoint the time frame for the last days at all. There are a few, however, that point to the historically recorded event called the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened around 70 A.D., just about the time that most scholars date the original texts of the gospels.

The entire 13th chapter of Mark deals with prophecy by Jesus about some time to come in the future. It includes descriptions of persecutions, wars, and natural calamities. Because most of the things described have happened often in the world, it is hard to pinpoint the time frame referenced, if indeed that time has yet come. We will look at a few references dealing with this prophecy. More could have been included, but they are similar, so that a sampling gets the point across.

Mk 13:2 says that "not a stone shall be left ... that shall not be torn down". Could this refer to the crucifixion when the curtain of the temple was torn into? Perhaps 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed? The context refers to the temple of Jerusalem (see Mk 13:1). Was this a general remark by Jesus prior to the prophecies in Mark 13, or was this a specific prophecy in itself about a specific historical event? We are not sure.

Mk 13:9 speaks of being delivered to judges. Mk 13:14 speaks of being "hated by all men, he who has patience will be saved". The key may lie in Mk 13:14 which says: "When you see the sign of uncleanness and desolation, as spoken by the prophet Daniel, accumulating where it should not be ... let those who are in Judea flee to the mountain". Either Jesus or the author adds a parenthetical note, "let him who reads understand", probably assuming that Jewish readers familiar with Daniel would grasp the meaning. Not being a good Jew, I must confess that I do not understand Daniel 9:27 and/or Daniel 12:11, which is probably what Jesus is referring to here. It is noteworthy that Daniel speaks of the "son of Man" and "Messiah", which are familiar topics in connection with Jesus. Others are undoubtedly more knowledgeable about what Mk 13:14 really means, but beware of false fundamentalist prophets who think they know exactly what it meant, i.e., the world was to end in 1980, according to one of them, and, of course, the key to the seven seals was held by David Koresh, the Waco wakko whose suicide fire of Branch Davidian infamy killed innocent children, etc. If you think you know what Mk 13:14 means, kindly visit a psychiatrist first, so that the rest of us can find out if you are nuts, and whether we can believe anything you say.

Continuing the monologue in Mk 13:32, after speaking of various signs, Jesus says that "only the Father knows the day and hour, not even the Son knows". That should prevent the next lunatic from getting too specific, but then again, these folks read what they want from the so called infallible Bible, and ignore the rest, so who knows? In Mk 13:35-37, Jesus says to be alert and watch for the end time, last days, or whatever it is exactly that Mark 13 is about.

Another theme or alternate title for the end time, last days, parousia, etc. is the coming of the Son of Man, the title that Jesus used most frequently for himself. Turning now to Luke’s gospel, there are some references here that are of utmost interest. Lk 18:8 simply asks, "when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?". This reference does not specify a time frame, but whenever these last days (or whatever) are, the Son of Man, apparently Jesus or his spirit in some way, will come or come back, presumably to earth, although that is not definite.

The case for the Parousia (that didn’t come) being in 70 A.D. is found in 2 references. In Lk 19:42-44, Jesus says: "If you (Jerusalem) had only known those who come for your peace, even in this your day ... the days will come when your enemies will surround you, and oppress you from every place, and will overthrow you and your children within you; and they will not leave in you a stone upon a stone, because you did not know the time when you were to be visited". Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D., and many scholars argue that this prophecy, perhaps written after the fact, demonstrates that Luke was written after 70 A.D. If this was the case, they probably "put some words in Jesus’ mouth" to direct the prophecy toward Jerusalem, 70 A.D. On the other hand, it could also have been one of those inevitable historical events that Jesus was perceptive enough to see some 40 years in advance, or, it could have been magical prophecy.

Lk 21:6-36 covers much of the same material as Mk 13, wars ... earthquakes, etc. Some of it follows, beginning with verse 6: "... the days will come when not a stone will be left ... which will not be torn down ... you will be hated by every man because of my name ... yet not a hair of your head will be lost ... but WHEN YOU SEE JERUSALEM SURROUNDED BY AN ARMY, THEN KNOW THAT IT’S DESTRUCTION IS AT HAND (contrast same accounts in Mark and Matthew) ... days of vengeance ... Jerusalem will be trodden under the feet of the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles comes to an end ... powers of the universe will be shaken ... will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with a large army ... your salvation is at hand ... THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS AWAY UNTIL ALL THESE THINGS HAPPEN ... keep watch ... that you may stand before the Son of Man".

The portions capitalized above hint strongly at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Unlike Mark and Matthew, the reference to the desolating sacrilege (or whatever) from Daniel is replaced with "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by an army", almost as if the author changed the prophecy after the fact to make it point to 70 A.D. The statement about this generation not passing away throws into question the traditional far future second coming doctrine of most orthodox Christian churches. A strong case can be made from the material above (note also the part about persecutions, etc., that fits 70 A.D.) that Jesus’ prophecy of the Parousia or end time came true (partly) in 70 A.D. But wait! What about the coming of the Son of Man? If Jesus’ second coming occurred in 70 A.D., we certainly have some sleepy church historians! Could the coming of the Son of Man mean something else? Other questions for those proposing the 70 A.D. theory: Why are Mark and Matthew’s testimonies different from Luke’s? Did Luke correct their prophecies after the fact? Which was more genuine? What did Jesus really say?

I do not pretend to know the answer. Let’s get some more information. Before proceeding, there are a couple more references generally related to this sub-topic. In Lk 23:28-31, Jesus says on the way to the cross, "... do not weep for me; but weep over yourselves and over your children ... the days are coming in which they will say, ‘blessed are the barren ... that never gave birth’ ... for if they do these things with the green wood, what will be done with dry wood?" This makes it sound like the end time/last days type persecutions are coming soon, and could support a 70 A.D. hypothesis.

There is one reference in John. In Jn 4:21, Jesus says (to a Samaritan), "... woman, believe me, the time is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will they worship the Father". This probably refers to the crucifixion, but could refer to the woes of Mk 13, Mt 24, and Lk 21. John is largely silent on the subject of the end time.

It is time to make the fundamentalists and conservatives happy. The traditional concept of the parousia, end time, last days, or whatever, still being in the future, is dominant in the gospels. No less than 24 references imply a future event that has not yet occurred. Many mention the end of the world, which, last time I checked, had not happened yet.

Mk 13:10 says that the "gospel must first be preached to all nations" (before the Parousia), which seems to imply a distant future time, unless "all nations" means those of the Roman Empire, the area near the Mediterranean Sea, in which case 70 A.D. might be plausible. Mt 24:14 similarly says that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached throughout the world ... then the end will come". This seems to imply the end of the world, although it could mean something else. The end of the world: Scientists tell us that in a few billion years, the earth will perish by natural causes. Of course, we might end it much sooner with nuclear wars, air pollution, destroying the rain forests, or some other not so natural process.

Natural disasters are predicted by Jesus. Mk 13:25 and Mt 24:29 both say that "stars will fall from the sky and powers of the universe shaken". In addition, Mt 13:25 says that the "sun will be darkened". Natural disasters are part of daily life, and have been for a long time, but stars falling from the sky? Of course, we don’t know exactly what Jesus meant by this in scientific terms. If he was referring to meteorites, that’s no big deal. People thought that the earth was flat back then, and stars were just above the clouds. Did he really mean literally that the universe would self destruct? It’s hard to say, but one must wonder whether this prophecy was indeed fulfilled in 70 A.D. We are not sure how literal Jesus was being here, but it is beginning to sound like something that has not yet happened.

Mk 13:26-27 says that the "Son of Man will come in clouds with a great army ... gather his chosen ones ... from the utmost part of the earth to the utmost part of heaven". Mt 24:30-31 says that the "Son of Man will appear in the sky ... glory ... angels ... will gather his chosen ones ... from one end of heaven to the other". This is radical stuff. Do you understand what is being said here? First, this definitely sounds like the end of the world, not 70 A.D. Excuse me, but I don’t recall anything in church history about this happening after the destruction of Jerusalem. Second, did you get that part about heaven? The popular conception of a permanent heaven after an individual’s death has just been refuted by Jesus. Heaven appears to be a temporary abode here. Jesus seems to be referring here to a more final judgment that comes AFTER heaven. The heaven being spoken of here is not forever!

It is possible that the meanings here are intended to be figurative rather than literal. However, if there really is life after death (if you can believe that), then why should a literal meaning of the above passages be ruled out of hand? We know very little right now about what happens in the spirit world, so who are we to say whether there is reincarnation, more than one rendition of heaven/hell, spirit life in other worlds, and/or a final chapter as these verses suggest? It is all well within the realm of real possibility. Have faith in God that it will be good.

Matthew, in particular, emphasizes the end time as the end of the world. In the parable and interpretation of the wheat and tares in Mt 13:25-30 and 13:37-43, Jesus says to "let them both grow together until the harvest ... (then) ... pick out tares and burn them but gather the wheat into my barns". In the interpretation, he says that the "Son of Man sowed the good seed, the field is the world, the good seed are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of evil ... the enemy who sowed them is Satan; the harvest is the END OF THE WORLD; and the reapers are the angels ... as tares are burned in fire, so shall it be at the end of the world ... Son of Man will pick out from the kingdom all workers of iniquity and throw them in the furnace of fire ... the righteous ones ... in the kingdom of their Father ...." One question in my mind here is whether "sons of the kingdom", "sons of evil", and "Satan" are people (spirits), as traditional Christianity teaches, or whether they are qualities within people (good and evil within each of us) as metaphysical religion teaches. To say that the entire story is metaphysical is a stretch. Jesus is telling a parable AND INTERPRETATION here, not just a parable.

Mt 25:31-34 carries the theme further: "When the Son of Man comes in glory ... he will separate (all nations) one from another ... sheep ... goats ... king will say to (some) ... come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom ... prepared for you from the foundation of the world". He then describes the people who did good. Frankly, it sounds like Jesus is indeed referring to human spirits (orthodox view) here in Matthew. As troubling as absolute final judgment is to liberals and moderates of the modern world of relativity, it does appear to be what Jesus is saying here. However, he is NOT saying here that this happens immediately upon physical death after one life on planet earth. He is speaking of the end of the world! Prior to that, heaven/hell may be relative, there may be other (unspecified) forms of spiritual life. We don’t know.

Mt 19:28 also comments on this subject: "... in the NEW WORLD when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of glory ... you (disciples) shall judge the 12 tribes of Israel". Jesus is not speaking of what occurs immediately after the disciples die (they didn’t all die at the same time). This reference also seems to refer to an unspecified future time beyond 70 A.D., probably to the end of the world.

Have you noticed that most references on this sub-topic (and all references to the end of the world) have been from Matthew? Does this beg the question that maybe some of this stuff came from that author rather than from Jesus? Probably so, but let’s look at what else Matthew had to say on the subject that Luke seemed to change around so much (see last sub-topic).

The 24th chapter of Matthew describes many of the same things as the 13th chapter of Mark. Mt 24:5 says that "many will come in my name and say, ‘I am the Christ’, and they will deceive many" (this particular statement is not in Mark). Mt 24:9 speaks, like Mark, of being hated by all nations for Jesus’ name’s sake. Mt 24:11-13 speaks of "false prophets ... love of many will become cold ... he who has patience to the end will be saved". Mt 24:21 says that "there will be great suffering such as has never happened ...." Mt 24:24 talks more about false christs and lying prophets. In Mt 24:23-26, Jesus tells people not to believe those claiming to see Christ!). References to Mt 24:14 and 24:29-31 have already been mentioned above. With the addition of the information about false christs and prophets, much of this is the same as Mark 13, with one important difference of context. Although these are not Jesus’ words, Mt 24:3 is critical. The disciples are asking Jesus "... what is the sign ... of the END OF THE WORLD?". Mark and Luke do not say this. One would presume that since Jesus replied with a lengthy discourse, rather than refuting the question, that his statements are in answer to the disciples’ question about the end of the world.

Now, consider Mt 24:15 in the context of the end of the world: "When you see the sign of uncleanness and desolation as spoken by the prophet Daniel accumulating in the holy place ...", then the end of the world, not just a bad time or a new era, is very near. There is a footnote in Lamsa’s Peshitta translation saying that enemies desecrated the temple by pollution. Frankly, I’m not sure what the significance of the footnote is, but it might give a bit more understanding to what we gleaned from Daniel earlier, which admittedly, wasn’t much. The point is that Matthew clearly describes the end time, Parousia, last days, coming of the Son of Man, or whatever you want to call it, as the end of the world, i.e., it HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, IT IS FUTURE. If you believe Matthew, there is virtually no doubt that this is the case.

There is more. Mt 24:34 says that "... this RACE (not generation) will not pass away until all these things happen". Whether the race refers to human race or Jewish race, neither has passed away yet (despite Hitler’s efforts), and this again points to a future, second coming, end of the world scenario. Note that Jesus does NOT speak, however, about a battle of Armageddon or a seven headed dragon (that’s from Revelation, not Jesus).

Mt 24:35 says that "even HEAVEN and earth will PASS AWAY, but my (Jesus’) words shall not pass away". As mentioned previously, Jesus in Matthew emphatically states that, contrary to popular opinion, HEAVEN IS NOT AN ETERNAL STATE. After heaven (after the end of the world), there will be a final judgement, and this is where the sheep are separated from the goats, not as soon as an individual person dies. Heaven takes on a new meaning when considered in this light. There could be varying shades of gray in this heaven, because the sheep and goats have not yet been separated. There could be many more incarnations and/or lives in other worlds before the final judgment is made. Jesus said nothing about reincarnation pro or con, but he did imply strongly that heaven is not permanent.

Continuing the main theme of this sub-topic, there is still more from Matthew. Mt 24:39 says (referring to Noah and the ark) that "they knew nothing until the flood came ... such will be the coming of the Son of Man", which, in the context of Mt 24, will occur at the end of the world. Continuing in verses 42-44, Jesus says to "be alert ... you do not know at what hour your Lord will come ... Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him". This makes it sound like the end of the world is coming soon (30 A.D.), but that is conjecture. Is it possible that the entire chapter of Mt 24 is symbolic? Could the end of the world represent the end of one person’s life on earth? Could the coming of the Son of Man be when an individual person dies and goes to heaven, thus meeting Jesus’ spirit face to face, so to speak? Of course it could be symbolic, but it could also be literal. The only thing that we should rule out is wavering back and forth from one to the other approach to suit our whims. If you desire to present a symbolic interpretation of Mt 24, kindly be consistently symbolic throughout. My approach here has been to take Jesus’ words more or less at face value. The entire chapter could be symbolic, but I see no strong evidence that it is.

In Mt 28:20, the risen Jesus says "... I am with you always, to the end of the world ...." Once again, Matthew specifically refers to the end of the world. There is little room for doubt as far as Matthew is concerned that the end time refers not to the first coming or 70 A.D., but to the future second coming at the end of the world. It is not even debatable.

The problem for the person who wants to believe Matthew is that you get a very different story when reading the other gospels, especially Luke. In summary, Luke implies that the end time has already happened in 70 A.D. Matthew emphatically states that the end time is future at the end of the world. Mark does not really say either, but seems to sometimes imply the end of the world, or at least some future second coming type scenario. John speaks of a last day, but really does not discuss the subject in any detail.

Although Luke does not describe the end time in this fashion, there is one reference which is probably to the final judgment so often discussed in Matthew. Lk 14:14 says, "... for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous". This does not make a strong argument either way about when the end time would be.

There are 2 references in John to the "last day". In Jn 12:48, Jesus points out that the word that he has spoken will judge at the last day. In Jn 6:44, Jesus says "... I will raise him up at the last day". These are not specific references to the scenario found in the synoptic gospels, but could be used to bolster the position taken in Matthew. John has little to say about the end time. There is certainly not an entire chapter devoted to it as in the synoptics.

So who is right about when the prophesied last days or Parousia will occur? Matthew, Luke, or the fundamentalists? Fundamentalists and many conservatives would say that all scripture agrees, and (therefore?) that Luke does not really imply that the last days would occur in 70 A.D., but rather that the interpretation of same is incorrect. They could be right on this one. There is certainly no specific reference in Luke to 70 A.D., and the destruction of Jerusalem is by no means the only historical calamity with circumstances generally similar to those prophesied by Jesus in Mk 13, Mt 24, and Lk 21.

What I think is that Luke re-interpreted the prophecy of Jesus after the fact, i.e., Luke was written after 70 A.D., and the author thought he saw the fulfilling of the prophecy then, so he changed Mark and Matthew’s accounts to reflect this view. We need to remember that people were expecting the end of the world, parousia, or whatever, to occur soon. After it didn’t occur for 40 years, Luke probably thought that there had been a misunderstanding by Matthew, that Jesus had not really referred to the end of the world, and that the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was the actual fulfilling of Jesus’ prophecy. That is my best guess.

Remember, the gospels did not become "infallible" until much later. In fact, Luke almost states outright that he disagrees with the others in Luke 1:1-3. As they did with Jesus’ genealogy, Matthew and Luke probably did disagree about the interpretation of Jesus’ prophecy, which is probably in its purest form in Mark, which is probably the original gospel that was later used by both Matthew and Luke. That’s a lot of if’s and probably’s, but a lot of scholars far more knowledgeable on the subject than I would probably agree with me if their pay was not withheld by their orthodox church employers for being that honest. OK, enough of that. Suppose Matthew and Luke do disagree. Who was right?

Gee, that’s a harder question. Obviously, I don’t know the answer, and it’s probably a little of both, i.e., I seriously doubt that either Matthew or Luke (or Mark, for that matter) are infallible. It seems to me that if Luke had actually claimed that 70 A.D. was the fulfilling of Jesus’ famous prophecy, surely someone later would have written something more definitive on the matter. If the Parousia came in 70 A.D., wouldn’t someone else have written about it? In fact, the scholars often write about the delay of the Parousia, i.e., people were expecting it, but it didn’t come. What happened?

Frankly, I think Matthew may well have been right in describing this time as the end of the world. Luke may have misread the situation on this one and/or the scholars may be wrong about Luke ever implying 70 A.D. in the first place. One thing is almost certain: The Son of Man did NOT come down on the clouds with glory in 70 A.D. I may not be a scholar, but I know full well that some early church father would have written something down if Jesus’ second coming had occurred during his lifetime. Scientists today tell us that planet earth will destruct some day, the only question is when. Belief in the end of the world is not some ignorant, unscientific myth like falling off the edge of the flat earth. The end is expected to occur by the brightest scientists. We just don’t expect to be around to report it when it happens. Matthew’s viewpoint makes more sense here. Though I am not prone to agreeing with fundamentalists on many things, I must give credit where due on this one. Mk 13, Mt 24, and Lk 21 are probably prophecies by Jesus of the second coming at the end of the world.

We have gone on and on about the kingdom and the end time. Are they the same thing? Are they 2 different things? How does heaven fit in? What are the relationships between these 2 very major topics that Jesus talked about so much? How does the kingdom relate to the end time?

First, let us acknowledge for the bean counters that we are still counting references on both subjects. So far, we have about 69 on the kingdom and about 40 on the end time. These counts are actually low, because in this section we will look at about 22 more that speak of one, the other, or both, and most of these are new references, not repeats. To say that Jesus spoke more about these subjects than anything else would be an understatement. Here we go.

Can we glean more about exactly WHAT Jesus meant by the kingdom? How is it related to the end time? Perhaps the first coming of Jesus was the kingdom and the second will be the end time? Let’s look at some passages that might support such a view.

Mk 9:1 says that "there are men standing here who will not taste death till they see that the kingdom of God has come with power". Lk 9:27 says the same, almost verbatim. Look at Mt 16:27-28! "The Son of Man will come in glory ... (and) reward each man according to his works (not according to his faith) ... there are men who stand here who will not taste death, until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom". Note that this comes from MATTHEW! Using Mark and Luke without Matthew, one could argue that the kingdom refers to Jesus’ resurrection and/or the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Given what Mt 16:27-28 says, however, it is no wonder that scholars debate the problem of the Parousia that didn’t come! Matthew seems to interpret this same basic saying, "there are men standing here who will not taste death until ....", as referring to both the kingdom and the end time, even specifically the second coming at the end of the world. As a brief aside, note also that Jesus clearly says here that judgment will be allotted according to works, not faith, contrary to Paul’s and Luther’s theologies, and that he implies the relativity of eternal reward "according to his works".

Returning to the topic at hand, how do we reconcile Mt 16:27-28 with the apparent facts? Could the kingdom refer to the resurrection of Jesus, i.e., could the coming in glory be the resurrection rather than the end time? It does not seem likely. Given that there was no second coming while these people were still alive, could Jesus have been wrong? Since I haven’t the wisdom or guts to disagree with Jesus, I will seek other explanations. Could Jesus have been referring to a different kind of death? Could he have meant SPIRITUAL DEATH, i.e., there are some standing here whose souls, spirits, or whatever will not (ever) die who will still exist in heaven, the kingdom, or whatever at the time when Jesus returns in glory at the end of the world? The latter interpretation is more consistent with what Matthew said in the previous section. Could this be what Jesus meant here? If he meant physical death, Mt 16:27-28 presents a serious problem for the believer. If the second coming, and presumably also the end of the world, were supposed to come before Peter, James, or John physically died on planet earth, I’ve got news for you, it didn’t. If Matthew is to be internally consistent, it seems that the spiritual death interpretation would be the correct one.

Is it possible that Matthew was adding on things, intentionally or unintentionally, to what Jesus really said, and that Mark and Luke are more accurate? Why do Mark and Luke not make the connection here between the kingdom and the end time (Son of Man coming in glory)? It is possible that Matthew had a theological agenda, and could have interpreted the oral tradition differently than the others. If Matthew is in error here, the kingdom could very well refer to the resurrection and/or first coming, not to the second coming or end time. Keep in mind also that Mark and Luke do not have strong implications of a second coming at the end of the world at all. Most of those ideas are in Matthew, and if Matthew was wrong, well?

I, for one, cannot dismiss what Matthew is saying here. If the meaning of death is indeed other than physical death in Mt 16:27-28, then there is no internal contradiction in Matthew, and also nothing stated that is contrary to fact. The world hasn’t ended yet, so we don’t know whether Matthew was right or not, but he hasn’t been proven wrong. Not claiming to know, I nonetheless take Matthew very seriously here, which throws doubt on the notion that the kingdom was the first coming, not the second. Matthew ties them together in a way that Mark and Luke do not.

Mk 14:25 says, "I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until THAT DAY in which I drink it new in the kingdom of God". "That day", a phrase often used by Old Testament prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah, normally refers to a future prophecy not unlike that of Jesus in Mk 13. In the Old Testament, it usually referred to the coming of the Messiah. It is not certain what Jesus meant by the phrase here, but it seems to point more toward the resurrection than to a future second coming here, although that is debatable.

Lk 22:16-18 has a similar saying: "... I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God ... I will not drink ... until the kingdom of God comes". This seems to refer to the resurrection, but again, that is uncertain.

Mk 14:62 and Mt 26:64 both say, "... you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming upon the clouds of the sky". This sounds like second coming stuff, but could this possibly refer to the ascension? Frankly, I didn’t know where to put this one, and I’m also not sure what it means. It could just as easily be used to argue that the kingdom is the second coming as it could for the first.

If you are confused now, wait until John chimes in. Jn 5:25 says that "... the time is coming, and it is now ALREADY HERE; when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear it will live". This could imply that the kingdom was Jesus’ first coming, except for what follows just a few verses later.

Jn 5:28-29 says, "... for the time is coming, when all those who are in the GRAVES will hear his voice, and they WILL COME OUT; those who have done good works to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil works to the resurrection of judgment". First, the aside: OK, justification-by-grace-through-faith-alone’rs, Jesus just shot your theology full of holes again! By the way, I had no bias against justification by grace through faith UNTIL this study! Now, back to the end kingdom confusion.

People coming out of the graves sounds like judgment day, end of the world, second coming stuff, but there is one place, Mt 27:52-53, in the resurrection narrative, where dead saints come out of the graves and appear in Jerusalem! Could John be referring to the resurrection here? Could there be a connection between Mt 27:52-53 and John 5:28-29? Frankly, I doubt it, but you never know for sure. The fact that the grave exiting scenario does not appear in the other gospels makes me highly suspicious. Come on, folks, that’s pretty darn newsworthy material if it really happened. John speaks of it as a future event, but only Matthew says that it actually happened in the past or present tense in history. How come 3 gospels left it out? I suspect rather that Matthew put it in, and that Jn 5:28-29 refers to the end of the world. Of course, I could be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.

Jn 11:25-26, about the death and raising of Lazar (Lazarus), may shed more light (or more wonder?) to the situation. Martha says to Jesus, "I know he (Lazar) will rise up in the resurrection at the last day". That’s the same end time message we have been discussing. Here’s Jesus’ reply: "... I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, even though he die, he shall live ... whoever is alive and believes in me shall never die ...." Is Jesus refuting the Jewish doctrine from Matthew that the dead will be raised on the last day? Look again at Jn 5:28-29. He seems to be saying that those already dead before his time will be raised on the last day (as Jewish tradition would say), but that those who believe NOW will never taste death, i.e., no need to be raised when still alive. Presumably, he was referring to their spirits, not their bodies, although a literal interpretation of the raising of Lazarus might make you wonder.

Was Jesus saying in Jn 11:25-26 that the kingdom refers to the first coming and/or the resurrection? Possibly, but there is no clear refuting that the kingdom refers to the end time.

Frankly, the argument that the kingdom refers to the first coming, resurrection, and/or ascension of Jesus, but not to the second coming, last days, final judgment, and/or end of the world, is not a very strong argument. The scripture passages above that I have attempted to use in support of such an argument seem to testify as much against it as for it.

Several references seem to connect the kingdom with the end time or last days fairly specifically. Although the word "kingdom" is not used, and the verse might not even refer to the kingdom, nonetheless Mk 13:30 according to Lamsa’s interpretation is thought provoking on the subject: "This NATION (rather than generation) will not pass away until all these things (end time stuff from Mk 13) happen". The generation to whom Jesus was speaking at the time has long since passed away, but the nation of Israel is still going strong. Will it cease to exist prior to the end of the world? Perhaps Jesus was misunderstood. Maybe he didn’t really mean that the Parousia would come soon. Maybe he just wanted people to be ready. This verse supports a second coming/end of the world scenario like the one proposed in Matthew.

Speaking of Matthew, would you like a blatant specific statement that the kingdom refers to the end of the world? You’ve got it. Read Mt 13:47-49: "The kingdom of heaven is like a net in the sea with fish of all kinds ... sorted the good ones into bags and the bad they threw away ... so it will be at the end of the world; angels will separate the bad from the righteous". Maybe this does not come right out and say that the kingdom IS the end of the world, but the implication is certainly present. "The kingdom of heaven is like ... the end of the world". Maybe they’re not equal, just LIKE? Well, let’s look further.

Lk 17:22-37 offers a long discourse by Jesus that is in response to a question by the disciples about WHEN THE KINGDOM OF GOD WOULD COME. This is shortly after Jesus’ famous statement that the "kingdom of God is within you". Lk 17:22-37 connects the kingdom with Luke’s end time (remember, Luke’s end time could be 70 A.D.). I will quote portions of it for flavor: "... such will be the day of the Son of Man ... just as it happened in the days of Noah, such it will be ... flood came and destroyed ... he who is in the field will not turn back ... remember Lot’s wife ... that very night ... one will be taken and the other left ...." Then the disciples asked where the one would be taken. Jesus said, "... wherever the carcass is, there will the vultures gather". This is definitely end time/last days prophecy, and represents one of two extended discussions of same by Jesus in Luke (the other is in Lk 21). Jesus specifically connects the kingdom with the end time here by responding to a question about the kingdom with a description of the end time. You can’t get a whole lot more specific than that. Yet he had just finished saying that the kingdom was in the midst of (or within) you. What’s going on here? What is this kingdom, anyway?

Luke connects the kingdom to the end time again in Lk 21:31, toward the end of the second end time narrative in Luke: "... when you see these things happen, know that the kingdom of God is near". Whatever this kingdom is, it is definitely connected with the end time or Parousia, which in Luke, could be 70 A.D., the end of the world, or possibly some other time such as the resurrection.

John also connects the kingdom to the end time via the final resurrection mentioned earlier. Jn 6:39-40, a discourse about God’s will, refers to the raising up at the last day. More specifically, Jn 5:28-29, which has already been discussed above (people coming out of graves and the final judgment), is very likely referring to the end of the world, or at least some type of end time scenario. The word, "kingdom", is not used in these references by Jesus, but one could infer that the kingdom was being referred to. However, we really cannot say for sure whether John was connecting the kingdom concept to the end time concept or not. At least, we need more information.

All 3 synoptic gospels, however, have at least 1 reference which strongly implies that the kingdom will come at the end time. Mark and Matthew either imply or state that the end time is the end of the world. Luke is less definite about when the end time is. John is less definite about connecting the kingdom with the end time at all. Nonetheless, the argument that the kingdom will come at the end of the world is a strong one.

However, to say that the kingdom will NOT come UNTIL the end of the world is totally invalid. Confused? Think of the kingdom as being like water instead of like a new house! It could come (like an ocean) at the end time, but it could also have come (like a river) during Jesus’ life, and does come (like a creek or even like a dripping faucet) every day, even though we may not notice it. Jesus didn’t say that, I did. Consider it, though, as we continue. How can the kingdom be at the end of the world, but also be close at hand in Jesus’ day, but also be within you? If it’s like a new house, it probably can’t be, because if I already have it, it’s not new when it comes again, but if it’s spirit (like water), it could come again, indeed in far greater portions than before.

This section is about more general and/or miscellaneous other references which seem to connect the kingdom concept with the end time concept. Various interpretations abound.

In Mk 4:29, at the end of the parable of the seeds, which is about the kingdom of God, Jesus says, "but when the fruit is ripe, immediately comes the sickle, because the harvest is ready". This could refer to the end time, thus associating the kingdom with it, or even defining the kingdom as the end time. On the other hand, the harvest could refer to physical death, with the kingdom (spirit) being released from the body.

In Mt 25:1-13, the kingdom parable of the virgins, Jesus says among other things that the "foolish ones took no oil in their lamps - while they were waiting the oil ran out ... be alert ... you do not know the day or the hour". Again, this could refer to the end time, and if so, associates the kingdom with it, or even possibly defines the kingdom as the end time. As in the last example, other interpretations are also plausible.

We have a non-specific reference in Lk 9:26: "For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes with the glory of his Father ...." The coming in glory may refer to the kingdom and/or the end time, but this is not at all definite.

Lk 18:29-30 says that "... there is no man who leaves houses or parents or ... for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive many times more at this time and in the world to come life everlasting". This seems to say that those who sacrifice will not only be rewarded with eternal life, but will also be rewarded now. If the world to come refers to the end time, this passage could be another link between it and the kingdom. Since it says "life everlasting", one would assume that it, at least, includes the end time, even if the reference is not specific.

Lk 6:23 says to "... rejoice in that day, for your reward is increased in heaven ...." In the Old Testament, "that day" often refers to future prophecy such as the end time. Whether heaven here is equated with the kingdom is debatable. Matthew seems to use them interchangeably, but Luke usually refers to the "kingdom of God" (not of heaven), so heaven could mean something else to Luke. This could be another reference tying the kingdom with the end time, although it is not at all certain from the text.

Lk 12:36-48 is a parable about servants regarding good preparation and stewardship. The master comes unexpectedly as in the parable of the 10 virgins. Part of this parable, Lk 12:40 says, "... you also be ready; for the Son of Man will come in that very hour that you do not expect". If this is another parable about the kingdom, which most of Jesus’ parables were, this could be another link between the kingdom and the end time. The master coming unexpectedly could refer to something like the end of the world, which would tie the kingdom with the end time. On the other hand, it could represent the unknown time of the death of one person, and as such, ramifications about the afterlife of that person, rather than the end time.

Lk 21:33, part of one end time narrative, makes a startling statement to the orthodox Christian who believes that heaven is eternal life: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away". What’s that again? HEAVEN ... WILL PASS AWAY! Once again, contrary to popular opinion, heaven, according to Jesus, is NOT the final resting place. In biblical concept, heaven is almost like a physical location, just beyond the clouds, sun, and stars, where the good people go after death, but it is not permanent. At the end of the world, there will be a final judgment where the separation of the sheep and goats will take place. It is then that eternal life, in a sense, begins. Heaven is more like what some call purgatory today, in the sense that it is a holding area, with a better aura than purgatory, but nonetheless temporary. Jesus does NOT say that we die and go to heaven forever. Heaven will pass away. Let’s see you symbolize your way out of that one, preachers! Do I see squirming? Could heaven include reincarnation and/or other lives in other worlds? Not saying yes, I’m not saying no either. Neither did Jesus.

Nowhere does Jesus say that once in heaven, always in heaven. Neither does he say that heaven is forever. Lk 21:33 specifically contradicts that notion. You may think of eternity after the final judgment as heaven, but that’s not what Jesus said. To his listeners, heaven was a good place above earth that would someday come to an end, just like earth.

Now, what is the relationship between heaven, the end time, and the kingdom? Matthew refers to the kingdom as the kingdom of heaven. Heaven is defined in the paragraph above. Mark and Luke usually call it the kingdom of God, rather than heaven, even in passages that refer to the same things. There are also numerous references to the kingdom as being now, even one saying that it is within you. The kingdom is also associated with the end time in many passages, either directly or by implication. Contrary to popular opinion, heaven apparently lasts UNTIL (not after) the end of the world (or end time), when there is a final judgment, and then final (everlasting) eternal life begins for the believer.

Please note that almost all of this final judgment stuff is from Matthew (with a few from John), not Luke or Mark. It could be a holdover from the Jewish theology of the time rather than actual teachings of Jesus. It could also be that Jesus believed these teachings. Nonetheless, heaven (even in Luke) is not seen as permanent.

So what is the kingdom? It’s here now, it’s also heaven, and it’s also the end time. It is a spiritual essence rather than a specific date, time, or place. Do you have any other interpretation that can make sense of so many otherwise contradictory statements by Jesus? I do not claim to be an expert in either biblical scholarship or spirituality, but that is my best honest guess at heaven, the end time, and the all-embracing kingdom of God. I believe that I have found the tip of its figurative iceberg, but I am a mere mortal (for now) whose primary goal (for now) is to find out what Jesus really said. Hopefully, we have just completed that task for what was by far the largest related group of topics; the kingdom, the end time, and the relation between the two. The total number of beans for the counters here was somewhere around 131 references! Now, pardon the pun, we go to our next topic, hell.

Hell and what? A hand basket? What’s this Gehenna stuff? Gehenna is the Greek word consistently used and footnoted in the RSV Bible for hell. Literally, Gehenna was a burning city dump or sorts outside Jerusalem where awful things like child sacrifices were sometimes performed. The fire at Gehenna never went out. Like the Olympic flame, it burned constantly, hence the connection with everlasting fire. Lamsa’s translation of the Peshitta sometimes uses Gehenna and sometimes hell to refer to what most Bibles call hell. Most references in this section, however, use neither term, but rather refer only to punishment in a more general way.

In Mk 6:11, concerning the sending out of the 12 disciples to preach the gospel, Jesus says concerning those in the city that will not receive them, to shake the dust off their feet ... and that it will be easier for Sodom in the DAY OF JUDGMENT than for that city. Mt 10:14-15 says about the same thing, as does Lk 10:12, concerning the sending out of the 70: "Much easier for Sodom in THAT DAY than for that city". Sodom, of course, was the Old Testament city that was destroyed when there were no good people left in it. The message is that there will be severe punishment for those who do not receive the gospel.

The "woes" are among the most problematic words uttered by Jesus, if indeed they were so uttered. In Mt 11:21-22 and Lk 10:13-14, Jesus utters the woes to Chorazin and Bethsaida, saying that it will be better for Tyre and Sidon (Gentile cities) in the day of judgment than for these Jewish cities. This obviously won him no popularity contests since he was speaking primarily to Jews when he said it.

The most shocking woe is in Mt 11:23-24 and Lk 10:16, where Jesus gives the woe to Capernaum (of all places) in Galilee, where Jesus performed many miracles and spent much time. He says that Capernaum will be brought down to Sheol (which in the Old Testament meant the grave, but in Jesus’ time, could have meant hell), and that it would be better for Sodom (the infamous Old Testament city that God utterly destroyed) than for Capernaum. This statement, taken literally and out of context, is a very large problem. Jesus had followers in Capernaum. Is he condemning the whole city, including his own followers and friends, to hell forever, just because somebody in town tells one of his disciples to get lost? If the passage is taken in a totally literal context, Jesus is one mean and nasty guy here who is violating his own rules about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Only an ignoramus need be so literal. Even if you believe that Jesus was super-God, he still talked to other people who were mere humans, therefore speaking in human language that they could understand, therefore most likely using figures of speech now and then, maybe quite often, as we do today. I seriously doubt if Jesus literally meant that God would torture every dead soul who ever lived in Capernaum in hell forever just because one dingbat at one house would not receive Simon Peter.

The woes are general poetic statements, perhaps really meaning that many in those cities would suffer great punishment in the life to come, or perhaps being even more symbolic in nature than that. Not being a metaphysics expert, I will leave the more symbolic stuff for others to figure out.

At first glance, Jesus sometimes seems like a very nasty fellow. However, the better you get to know him (by reading his words again and again), the more it begins to sink in that much of his strong language that first sounds like "go to hell, almost everybody" really means something more like "I’m really upset that you people are ignoring justice and God, and there will be a price to pay, i.e., judgment and punishment". Now, that’s not quite like "it’s OK, dear", but Jesus lived in the real world. He too was human. Forgiveness did not come cheaply. Jesus really cared about justice and truth, and he did have a temper. He was not the wimpy, effeminate goody-goody-gumdrop that many pious Christians describe.

Perhaps the woes were somewhat like a good father severely chastising his children for dealing drugs. You don’t deal with that type of behavior with a mild slap on the wrist, followed by immediate forgiveness. Maybe the best father in that instance starts talking about forgiveness after the kids spend a few years in jail! Then, it means something! Maybe Jesus was really just trying to wake these people up before it was too late. Of course, I cannot prove that Jesus is not a really mean, nasty, and lonely soul in heaven while almost everyone else burns in hell. If that is what you want to believe, why are you reading this darn liberal book?

Other than the woes and the kingdom/end time material already covered, I found 2 more "nasty" references to judgment day, both in Matthew. Note, however, that we did have a judgment day statement by Jesus above in Mk 6:11, plus implications of same above in the woes, where references also included Luke, so the theme is primarily from Matthew, but not without some support from the other gospels.

Mt 12:36 says that "... for every foolish word which men speak, they will have to answer for it on the day of judgment". Taken alone, this could be interpreted to mean the traditional meeting with St. Peter (or such as that) at heaven’s gate upon physical death for each person, i.e., each person’s judgment day may be a different day. This is NOT what Matthew meant, however. You want proof? Here it comes!

Mt 13:40-42, part of the INTERPRETATION of the parable of the wheat and tares, says that "just as tares are burned in fire, so shall it be at the END OF THE WORLD ... workers of iniquity thrown into furnace of fire ...." Just in case you didn’t get it, I don’t expect to be writing books from my living room 5 billion years from now at the end of the world. He’s not talking about right after you die, he’s talking about 5 billion years (or 2 days, or whenever it happens) from now when the world ends. If you are NOT going to take "end of the world" literally, then you might as well "metaphysicalize the hell out" of all of it, and make it sound nice, symbolic, and totally different from what he said. Orthodox Christianity has symbolized the end of the world as one person’s physical death, but has held onto the literal interpretation of the everlasting furnace of fire. That’s wrong! You can’t have it both ways! Either the entire statement in Mt 13:40-42 is symbolic or the entire statement is literal!

Our straw man Hitler will either go to the fire of hell when the world ends (don’t know where he might be now) or else the whole thing is metaphysical symbolism. Matthew does not say that our hypothetical Uncle Adolph has been burning in hell since 1945! He says that he will burn in the fire (hasn’t said hell yet) after the world ends. That leaves room for all kinds of afterlives, reincarnations, and only-God-knows-what-else between now and then, unless then is in a few days. Of course, the fundamentalists do like to talk about the final judgment and the end of the world, but they also imply or state outright that some go to hell immediately after death. At least they are a bit more honest than most other orthodox Christians in the interpretation of Matthew, but they miss Matthew’s boat when implying that people go to hell as soon as they die. Matthew is NOT saying that here!

No references in this section specifically mention hell, Hades, Gehenna, or Sheol. Punishment is discussed by Jesus in the context of life (or something) after physical death, but without specifying hell or any other hell word. In only one place does it say that the punishment is eternal. No other references in this section (indeed, no other references, period, in the 4 gospels) say that.

Mk 16:16, part of a later add-on to the original gospel of Mark, says that "he who believes and is baptized will be saved; and he who does not believe shall be condemned". Believe what? Obviously, this refers to belief IN Jesus. Nonetheless, the statement seems somewhat out of character for Jesus, who has emphasized salvation by works, not faith, so far. I do not believe that this statement is genuinely from the historical Jesus, i.e., I don’t think he said it. Reason number 1, and obvious, is that the oldest known manuscripts (about 400 A.D.) of Mark end at Mk 16:8, and there are 2 alternate add-on endings other than this one. Reason number 2 is that the statement is out of character for Jesus. I do not normally accuse gospel writers of specifically "putting words into Jesus’ mouth", but in this case I make an exception. Mk 16:9-16 is a MUCH later add-on to the words of the original gospel writer (after 400 A.D. versus 60 A.D.?). This same add-on also contains the stuff about believers handling snakes and drinking poisons! This wasn’t said by Jesus, it was said by some 5th century (or later) theologian! Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not staking my faith in a highly questionable add-on that is footnoted as same in the RSV.

Other than this add-on, there are 5 references in Mark, most likely the original gospel, to punishment, 4 of which are very general in nature, and one of which refers to Gehenna, not hell, in the Aramaic. John has only 1 reference that I could find on the entire subject. Most of the hell and punishment are in Matthew and Luke. We might suspect the hypothetical "Q" source, but most of the most is in Matthew alone. As we have already seen, the gospel of Matthew contains a theology of absolute heaven-hell separation lacking in most references of the other 3, and Matthew’s theology takes place after the world ends. Nowhere is there strong evidence of an absolute separation immediately after one physical human death.

Mt 5:25-26 and Lk 12:58-59 both have similar statements by Jesus about punishment. Luke says that "... when you go with your accuser to the ruler ... settle with him ... (otherwise) ... you will not come out from thence until you pay the last penny". This is either a parable or other symbolic statement by Jesus that goes beyond paying your debts. There is no reference to hell, fire, or eternal punishment, but a strong implication that justice will be served, presumably in the afterlife, although that is not specifically stated here.

In Mt 8:12, after the Centurion’s servant healing, Jesus says that "... sons of the kingdom will be put into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth". The kingdom here refers to that of Israel, not that of God, i.e., some Gentiles will be saved while many Jews will not. The Centurion’s servant healing is also in Mark, but this statement is not. Whether or not Jesus really uttered these words is debatable, but we will assume that he did. After all, this kind of talk would not win Jesus many friends among Jews, for whom the scholars say that Matthew was written, so that is a fairly strong argument that the statement is genuine.

In Mt 13:50, at the end of the parable of the net, Jesus says that they (angels) "will throw them (presumably bad people) into a furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". This must be at least partially symbolic, since one would not have much time for weeping or gnashing after being thrown into a furnace of fire for almost immediate death by burning.

In a parable of servants, Mt 18:34 says that the master delivered an evil servant who would not forgive "until he should pay everything he owed him". A strong message of justice prevails here by Jesus. Note that the message has little or nothing to do with what the servant believed. It is how he shamefully treated other servants that brought about his punishment. Personally, this type of thinking is for me a strong argument for belief in an afterlife. Justice on this planet is imperfect and sparsely enforced, if you take all factors into account.

Matthew is not a very "nice" gospel. Mt 21:40-41, after a parable of laborers, says that the master (God?) will savagely destroy these laborers (paraphrase). Again, Matthew was written for Jews, and if you check the Old Testament, lots of it wasn’t very "nice" either.

Mt 22:11-14, at the end of the parable of the marriage feast, says, "... a man who was not wearing wedding garments ... take him out into darkness ... weeping ... gnashing of teeth ... for many are called but few are chosen". This sounds like nasty double predestination stuff that would make John Calvin proud. The metaphysicians have offered a symbolic interpretation based on what wedding garments stood for, but I can’t remember what it is. I hope that they are right, because if this parable represents what it first appears to represent, the poor sucker who didn’t fit in with the crowd must have gone to hell for God-only-knows-why, because the parable does not tell us what the poor sucker did to deserve such a fate. Help, metaphysicians! This parable is one of the most troubling things (to me) that Jesus ever said. Note again that this is found ONLY in Matthew. That ole tax collector (or whoever wrote that book) was sure trying to scare the hell out of somebody, presumably some hypocritical Pharisees like the ones who had Jesus killed. He has succeeded in scaring the hell out of a lot of other folks too through the years, including yours truly. Was it God’s will that all this stuff be in that book? I don’t know. My job is to report what’s there.

Mt 24:48-51 talks about a bad servant who will be scourged, and, you’ll never guess, "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". Yes, and Jesus supposedly said it, and he may well have for all we know, but you don’t hear about this stuff much in church, do you?

Mt 25:30, at the end of the parable of the talents, says, "and the idle servant they threw into the outer darkness ... (and it wouldn’t be complete in Matthew without some) ... weeping and gnashing of teeth ...." This is my all time non-favorite parable of Jesus for 2 reasons. First, it is (as previously mentioned) the most misinterpreted parable of all time by uneducated preachers, because a biblical talent is a coin, not an artistic ability. Second is Mt 25:30. This basically says that I am going to hell because maybe I’m a little lazy sometimes, and maybe I should do more than I do to help others. You didn’t pay me back with interest? Off to gnashingsville with you! I can’t believe that Jesus could be that hateful. This is the same guy that forgave his killers at the cross. I can understand him condemning the sleazy Pharisees who were having him killed, but what about this poor lazy and scared sucker who hid the coin until the master returned? What’s so terrible about that? Go to hell, lazy sucker. Well, it’s a parable, and I don’t understand what it means, only what it does not mean, using your talents wisely, because a biblical talent is a coin, not an ability. Help again, metaphysicians. Most interpretations of this parable are not helpful to mental health or integrity either one.

You think Matthew’s done? The worst is yet to come! Get a load of Mt 25:41-45, which is referring back to Mt 25:32-34, and God says, "go away from me you cursed to the EVERLASTING FIRE which is prepared for the adversary and his angels ... for I was hungry and you did NOT give me food ... thirsty ... stranger ... naked ... sick ... in prison, and you did not visit me ... inasmuch as you did NOT DO it ...", you are thrown into the everlasting fire. First, notice that this, again, is emphatically salvation by works, not faith. The everlasting fire is often thought to mean hell, but Gehenna, the biblical Greek word used for hell, was a city dump outside Jerusalem which did have an everlasting fire of sorts, because it never went out as far as people knew at that time. This is very tough stuff because it condemns not only the doers of evil but also the non-doers of good. This is enough to scare the hell out of most people.

Did Jesus really say this stuff? Again, it’s ONLY in Matthew, and therefore subject to question. However, in spite of its nasty tone, it has a poetic quality about it that rings a bit true, doesn’t it? Jesus never was interested in fancy talkers, he wanted doers. This sounds like a lot of the same stuff from the "bear your cross and follow me" sections. I wouldn’t dismiss this stuff as inauthentic just yet. It doesn’t sound like the Jesus with a halo over his head, but it may well have been the real Jesus saying this nasty stuff. Did he mean it "literally literally" or just "figuratively literally"? Huh?

There can be little doubt as to Matthew’s belief about absolute separation of good from evil souls at the end of the world, and this is part of the last judgment narrative in Mt 25. Did he really mean that all those less productive than Mother Theresa would go to h, ah, everlasting fire? Does God love only the greatest saints? That’s what a "literal literal" interpretation here would seem to say: If you haven’t helped at least 10 old ladies across the street per day average since age 15, your butt is bound for the big fire eternally. Jesus was probably making a point in an emotional way. He was probably using comparison and contrast language in a way that would wake people up and make them listen. For certain, he was saying that people who DO good will be rewarded and people who DO NOT DO good will be punished, but remember, this refers to the end of the world, not physical human death. By the way, who do you know that has never ever done any good whatsoever? I could ask the same question concerning those who have never ever done evil. Who do you know that you think will go to hell? Difficult questions to answer? Remember, Jesus may have been exaggerating a bit here to make a point.

By the way, Mt 25:41 does NOT say that the punishment is eternal, it says that the fire is eternal. This could just mean instant death (endless sleep) in the eternal Gehenna fire, not torture in the nasty hell fire. It could, that is, until you get to verse 46. Why did he have to say this? Did he really say this? At the conclusion of the entire judgment day discourse, Mt 25:46 says, "and these shall go into everlasting torment, and the righteous into eternal life". This is probably the origin of the orthodox doctrine of eternal hell fire and damnation, although the word, "hell", is not used here. Nonetheless, verse 46 demands that the orthodox concept of eternal damnation be seriously considered.

This verse is my number one all time non-favorite saying of Jesus, because I just can’t square it in my mind with a loving God. Even I, mediocre creature that I am, would not condemn even Hitler to this - keep him in jail, maybe, so he can’t hurt anybody, but not eternal flaming body. Thank God this is ONLY in Matthew. Do I believe it? Not really, but it scares me enough to take it seriously. However, if this eternal fire stuff is really from Jesus, why is it missing from the other 3 gospels? I wish that some biblical archaeologist would dig up an older version of Matthew that said the fire, not the torment, was eternal, so that the Hitler’s of the world could just die instead of being eternally tortured. But this has not happened and probably never will. I wish Mt 25:46 was not in the Bible, but it is.

It should be carefully noted, however, that this one verse is the ONLY place in the 4 gospels where the punishment that Jesus speaks of is said to be everlasting. All other references merely state that the fire is everlasting if they say everlasting at all. However, it still cannot be easily dismissed for 2 reasons. First, Mt 25:46 does not appear to be a later add-on, or at least there is no concrete evidence that it is. Second, it is consistent with Mt 25's discourse of the last judgment at the end of the world. There is nothing in Mt 25 that is internally contradictory. Of course, there’s also a third reason, namely that it scares the hell out of us.

One must include Mt 25:46 in any analysis of Matthew’s message overall. The last judgment at the end of the world is not really a strong message in the other 3 gospels, especially not Luke, as we have seen in the kingdom/end time analysis. Is Matthew adding his interpretation of Jewish theology onto Jesus’ actual words? Where did this hell/eternal punishment notion come from anyway? It was not present in the Old Testament until quite late. Answer from history of religions: It probably came from Cyrus of Persia, whose triumph over the Babylonians freed the Jews from their captivity. The Persian religion, Zoroastrianism, was dualistic, God and Satan. Satan, by the way, never appeared in the Old Testament either until Job, who just happened to be dealing with the problems of evil and injustice in the world. It is quite possible that the absolute separation doctrine or absolute heaven/hell notion actually came from the Jewish religion as influenced by Zoroastrianism in the centuries before Jesus, rather than from Jesus himself. Jesus may have believed it himself, but if it was his original idea or message from God, why is it missing in 3 of the gospels?

Am I rationalizing my way out of hell? Let the facts be the judge. I believe that God is love, that’s also in the Bible. How can you honestly square that with eternal damnation, even for Hitler? Come on, for awhile, maybe, but why not just kill the sucker? Does a loving God derive pleasure from torturing some scumbag? Why else would there be eternal punishment? I will remain open, because this is too important to be ignorant about, but my best guess is that the eternal hell notion came from Zoroastrian dualism, not Jesus, and that Jesus didn’t challenge it because he didn’t come to talk theology, but rather to be honest about true righteousness and the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. There is no doubt, though, that he did talk lots about punishment in some ongoing sense relating to the afterlife. Hopefully, his words were misinterpreted to mean hell. By the way, the word, "hell", has still not appeared in any references thus far, including Mt 25:46.

Moving on now to Luke, there is another punishment reference after Jesus’ narrow door discourse. This is Lk 13:25-28: "... he will answer ... I do not know you or where you come from ... depart from me, O you workers of iniquity ... there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham ... but you will be thrown outside". Not as eternally fiery as Matthew, but still no picnic. This is 1 of 2 places where Luke, a "Gentile" gospel, speaks of Abraham in the context of punishment. The other will be discussed later.

John, the "love" gospel, has a grand total of 1 reference that I could find about the entire topic of punishment. Jn 15:6 says that "unless a man remains with me, he will be cast outside ... into the fire to be burned". This sounds more like destruction by fire rather than eternal punishment, although John doesn’t really say.

As you can see, the massive majority of punishment narrative from Jesus comes from Matthew, whose purpose was different from the others, i.e., more Jewish audience. The eternal hell stuff is questionable, but there are enough references overall to punishment with justice to vouch for its authenticity re. coming from the historical Jesus. His message was not all feel-good smiles.

There are numerous other references to punishment which we will briefly cover before going to Sheol, hell, Gehenna, and other delightful places. These may or may not refer to afterlife. The first one probably does.

Mk 8:38 says, "whoever is ashamed of me ... the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in the glory of his Father ...." This implies punishment, probably in the aftermath of the end of the world, although other interpretations are very possible.

Mk 12:9 and Lk 20:15-16, in a parable of laborers who killed the owner’s son, point out that the

owner of the vineyard will destroy those laborers. The son refers to Jesus and the laborers refer to the Pharisees that Jesus had spoken the parable against.

Referring to Judas Iscariot, Mk 14:21 and Mt 26:24 both say, "... woe to the man by whose hand the Son of Man is betrayed". Matthew adds that it would be "better for that man never to have been born". Not very nice stuff to be saying about one of your disciples? Jesus was not a sissy with a halo over his head. He was a human being with real emotions like the rest of us.

In another of Matthew’s scare the hell of ‘em passages, Mt 7:13 says, "... for wide is the door and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many are those who travel on it". This has been interpreted to mean that far more people will go to hell than heaven, but when you ask people to name one person they know who will probably go to hell, they squeamishly mention Adolph Hitler (but you never knew Adolph Hitler, name someone you know). It’s only THEM (communists, bad niggers, liberals, foreigners, flag burners, Arabs, and white trash) who go to hell. US (everyone I know) goes to heaven. Of course, Mt 7:13 does not say anything at all about hell. It could just mean that there are more ways to screw something up than there are to fix it, and I can assure you from a career in computer programming that the road to erroneous results is very wide, and there are at least ten times as many ways to get it wrong than there are to get it right. Jesus may have just been saying that there are many false teachings that can cause you problems in life, whereas the Truth is harder to follow. He wasn’t necessarily even talking about the afterlife here. Maybe so, maybe not.

Mt 18:7-9 and Lk 17:1-2 both say about the same thing. We’ll quote Luke: "... woe to him by whose hand they (offences) come ... better for him ... millstone ... neck ... sea, than to cause one of these little ones to stumble". I think you get the point. What would you feel like doing to someone who abused a child? Do you think that Jesus was just a forgiveness machine and God is just a love bug? This reaping what you sow stuff applies not only to farming. There is no honest way that you can double talk your way around the fact that Jesus taught that sleaze will be punished. I hate to think that anyone would really be tortured forever by a non-loving God, but a repentant murderer does not bring the dead person back, and our crap does not go unnoticed and unpunished by God, in one way or another, and that’s true whether God is a ghost-person or whether God is like water. Confessing your sins does not undo what you have done in life. Contrary to many Pauline Baptists’ opinions, most deathbed conversions probably don’t impress God very much. We’re justified by works, not faith, remember? Well, at least partly. More on that later.

Mt 21:44 says that "whoever falls on this stone will be broken, and whomever it falls upon, it will destroy". As usual, Matthew sounds like a fundamentalist at first until you realize he was a Jew. I sometimes wonder if Jesus was really this nasty.

Lk 19:27, at the end of the parable of the talents, says, "but those my enemies ... kill them before me". Oh joys, let’s go shoot up some federal revnoors. Remember, this was a PARABLE. Jesus did not belong to the Michigan Militia. I don’t understand this parable and I don’t like it, but maybe some day I will.

There is a story (or parable?) in Luke, not found in the other gospels, concerning a rich man and Lazarus. This is not Lazar (Aramaic for the Lazarus that Jesus raised in John), but a different person. The story is about poor Lazarus, a beggar, who apparently lived and slept outside the property of the rich man, who had plenty to eat and many possessions. Both men die. Luke 16:19-26 says, "... rich man also died and was buried ... while he was tormented in Sheol (Hades in RSV) ... for I am tormented in this flame ... you received your pleasures when you were living, and Lazarus his hardships; and behold now he is comfortable here (in Abraham’s bosom), and you are suffering ... a great gulf is fixed between us and you".

The first time I read this, it sounded like sure eternal hellfire for the rich man and eternal heaven for Lazarus. It does NOT say here that Sheol (or Hades) is eternal. It does mention fire. I looked up Hades in the dictionary: Sheol, grave, sometimes hell. Lk 16:28, 2 verses later, refers to "this place of torment", that is, Sheol or Hades. In the Old Testament, Sheol just meant the grave. It seems to refer to hell here. However, this story concludes with Lk 16:31 with a point, like many of Jesus’ parables, the point being that people who ignored Moses will also ignore someone who is raised from the dead. Orthodox Christianity usually treats this account as a literal story, this rich man went to hell, and is talking to Abraham from hell, begging him for several things. If it is a literal story, why does it end with a point like so many of Jesus’ parables?

This is probably a PARABLE, the figurative meaning of which I am uncertain, other than the punch line about believing Moses. Conservative critics may rightly point out that the parables were also literally true, so even if it is a parable, it is still literally true also. Good point, but who says Jesus can’t tell a parable that is NOT literally true? Who’s making the rules here anyway? I’m not convinced that this story actually happened. I think, rather, that Jesus was telling a story to make a point.

It is odd that Sheol (or Hades) is used here rather than hell or Gehenna, which Jesus used much more frequently. Add to that the fact that the entire story is missing from the other gospels, and you begin to wonder if it is authentic (from Jesus) or whether the author of Luke (or even a later editor) added it in. If someone added it in, it must have been a spokesperson for the poor, given the gist of the story. Since one normally does not find very many spokespersons for the poor either inside or outside the institutional church, one could argue that it is authentic. Jesus may well have been the strongest advocate that the poor ever had. There is a good chance that it is authentic (from Jesus) in spite of its questionable nature, but there is also a good chance that it was not meant by Jesus to be a literal story of actual history in heaven and hell. Whatever it is, it stands out like a literary sore thumb because it uses a different term for punishment than all the other gospel references.

The RSV has a footnote by every single reference to the word, hell, in the gospels. It says, "Greek: Gehenna". We have already seen that Gehenna was a place outside Jerusalem where there was an "endless" fire where things (including human bodies) were burned. Lamsa’s Aramaic translation is interesting in that some of the RSV’s "hell’s" with footnotes to Gehenna are translated as "hell" and others are translated as "Gehenna". This leads one to wonder if the "hell" translations are instances where the author meant hell as in afterlife, but the "Gehenna" translations were meant to literally refer to the city dump, Gehenna. This is not a fact, just a theory on my part. The facts are anything but clear on this hell and Gehenna stuff. First, we will look at the references where "hell" is used in the Aramaic translation rather than "Gehenna". Remember, the corresponding RSV verses say "hell" with a "Gehenna" footnote.

Right off the bat, I’ll tell you that 5 of the 6 references are in Matthew (should that come as a surprise?), and the 1 other from Luke is also in Matthew (same account). Not a solitary "hell, not Gehenna" reference exists in either Mark or John. Mark uses Gehenna. John uses nothing.

Mt 5:22, a very disturbing and nasty verse, says, "whoever calls his brother a ?????? is condemned to hell fire". The RSV translation of ?????? is "fool". So Aunt Esther (Ha Glory!) of Sanford and Son is going to hell for calling Freddie G an old fisheyed FOOL. And she was a good Baptist! Don’t you just love LITERAL interpretation of scripture? Lamsa’s translation of the ?????? word is "effeminate" with a footnote which says also, "brutish, abnormal". Hum, effeminate, brutish, abnormal? Aha, a queer! Of course, homosexuals, gays, fags! Dick Armey is going to hell for (accidentally?) calling Barney Frank "Barney Fag". It doesn’t say "on purpose" in Mt 5:22! Dick Armey has been condemned to be with Aunt Esther! Hah glory, she’s big, black and ugly!

Frankly (that’s frank, not ...), I think Mt 5:22 is either an ancient mistranslation, or a nasty add-on to the Sermon on the Mount by the author of Matthew, or perhaps, it is symbolic language that I have no earthly idea of the meaning. I cannot see Jesus Christ, the guy who died on a cross for what he believed in, taught us to love each other, fed the poor, and taught us how to live, going around condemning someone to hell for calling someone a fool, a fag, or anything else, for that matter. If this verse is literally true, most people will go to hell, and only a few goody-goody-gumdrops will escape it. Since many self-righteous, hypocritical, pious good-goody-gumdrops would like to have you believe just that, they will defend this as literal and authentic, and then quickly tell you that you can be forgiven if you accept Jesus (and of course join their church).

The next bit of hell is Mt 5:29-30, just a few lines later. Jesus supposedly says here (paraphrasing) that if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out (Aramaic idiom meaning "stop envying") ... better to have 1 eye than to have 2 eyes in hell ... if right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off (stop stealing) ... better 1 hand than 2 in hell ...." Thanks to Lamsa for the translations of the Aramaic idioms, these passages make much more sense (stop envying and stealing) and are less barbaric (ice pick in eye, hacksaw to arm) than the grossly literal translations of the RSV and others. Unfortunately, the hell is still there though, and it’s not a short trip to Gehenna just to scare you half to death, it’s to hell, whatever that is. Jesus (if indeed it was Jesus who said this stuff) has not defined hell to us yet. He has not said yet, even in Matthew, that hell is eternal. He has said in Mt 25:46 that there is eternal punishment after the end of the world, and he says here that there is hell, but he has not said yet that the 2 are the same.

Mt 23:30-33 (Jesus to the Pharisees) mentions hell again: "... you say, ‘if we had been living in the days of our forefathers, we would not have been partakers in the blood of the prophets’ ... now you testify ... that you are the children of those who killed the prophets ... you also fill up the measure of your fathers ... you serpents and offspring of scorpions ... how can you flee from the judgment of hell?". This reminds me of modern southern conservatives who are the sons of segregationist bigots, but don’t want to take responsibility for same. Oh, well, maybe it’s not an exact parallel. We wouldn’t want too much twang in hell either, would we?

If somebody really is going to a place called hell, Jesus makes it rather clear here that the Pharisees are the ones bound for same. They were trying to have Jesus killed, and they were also blithering hypocrites. Am I going to hell for saying that? I didn’t say fag fool, did I? Who are the modern day Pharisees? That’s another book, but in my opinion, nobody fits the bill better than those who love to threaten others with hell in the name of Jesus. If anybody goes to hell, it’s the hypocrites. That’s what Jesus seems to be saying here, and he does clearly say "hell", but he still hasn’t defined hell as eternal.

In Mt 23:15, Jesus refers to followers of the Pharisees as sons of hell. Now, here’s another problem I have with Mt 5:22. It’s OK for Jesus to call somebody a son of hell here, but when Aunt Esther calls Freddie G an old fish-eyed fool, hah, glory, zap, to hell. That doesn’t seem fair, especially from a loving God. Frankly, I think the author of Matthew had some problems that ended up in his gospel. Would Jesus really call somebody a son of hell? That wouldn’t surprise me so much, not nearly as much as Jesus condemning somebody to hell just for calling somebody a fool or a queer. Yes, he might have called the Pharisees sons of hell, and frankly, I don’t have any particular problem with it if he did. He may have been God, but he was also human. In this passage, hell could just be a figure of speech rather than literal hell, kind of like another similar phrase we have today that has to do with female dogs and their offspring. Mt 23:15 is not terribly significant other than to upset the goody-goodies because Jesus used such strong language. Did he really say it? Probably so, or something similar.

Our final trip to hell goes through Mt 10:28 and Lk 12:5. The former says to "be afraid of him who can destroy both the soul and body in hell". The latter, the only hell in Luke, says to "be afraid of him who after he has killed has the power to throw into hell". Is Jesus referring to Satan or God here? The small "h" in "him" makes you think Satan, but Lk 12:28 refers to God as "he" with a small "h". As we will see later in the section on Satan, nowhere is there a dualistic theology in the gospels saying that Satan, not God, sends people to hell. Of course, you might want to refer back to the section on judgment for more detail re. God (or God’s word) judging us. As previously mentioned, Jesus usually tells us not to fear, but here he tells us to fear either God, Satan, or whatever it is (ourselves?) that might send us to hell.

That’s it, no more hell! End of hell, and NOWHERE did Jesus say that HELL is everlasting! Now, he didn’t say that it wasn’t everlasting either, but if hell is everlasting (forever after the end of the world), why is the word, "hell", NEVER mentioned in Mt 25's discourse about the final judgment after the last days and the end of the world? Matthew mentions hell at least 6 times. Why not there where he mentions eternal torture? I don’t think the hell Jesus discussed is the eternal punishment after the end of the world. The Bible often speaks of heaven and hell as just above and below the earth. We have already seen how Jesus spoke of heaven passing away just like earth. I think what he meant by hell was more like a temporary holding place, perhaps a prison, like Gehenna, with lots of misery, for those whose lives on earth deserved same and/or needed same in order for God to get their attention on the road to spiritual growth. Now, I won’t try to tell you that Jesus said that, it’s just what I happen to believe.

Scared of going to hell? Since it’s in the Bible and JESUS supposedly said stuff about it, we are fools (oops) to ignore it. However, if you have half a brain, it must be obvious by now that the whole "hell" thing is questionable. Come on! If orthodox Christianity is right, how come Mark and John never use the word and Luke only once? Was Matthew the only gospel writer who was awake? If there really is an eternal hell, that’s extremely important to know about, wouldn’t you say? If it’s true, wouldn’t avoiding hell be one of the most important things that Jesus could possibly tell us about? Wouldn’t that be lots more important than telling us not to worry about food and such, more important than lots of other things he talked about? Why is almost ALL the hell in Matthew? Same answer as earlier: Matthew was writing for a post Maccabean Jewish audience, part of whose theology was Zoroastrian-influenced dualism, God-Satan, heaven-hell. Original Old Testament literature had no hell, but Cyrus of Persia’s defeat of the Babylonians, which freed the Jews from captivity, led to this latter day Jewish-Zoroastrian dualism which Jesus inherited from tradition, i.e., the Judaism of his time.

The other gospels, especially Luke and John, were written for Gentile audiences, and there is little if any hell or everlasting punishment in them. Of course, hell is probably not the everlasting punishment mentioned in Mt 25:46 anyway. There is a good chance that both of them were ideas of the author of Matthew, not of Jesus. Mt 25:46 is the ONLY place in the gospels that says that the punishment is eternal. Except for the 1 reference above in Luke, Matthew is the ONLY gospel author who talks about hell rather than Gehenna. Luke probably picked that verse up from Matthew or a common source. Again, I cannot see how a loving God could condemn anyone to eternal damnation, not even Hitler. Temporary, maybe, but not eternal. Apparently, neither could Mark or John, because they never mentioned hell or eternal punishment either one, although they did mention punishment as a theme.

As previously mentioned, the RSV footnotes every "hell" reference with the caption, "Greek, Gehenna". Lamsa’s translation from the Aramaic uses "hell" in about 6 places that we looked at above, but uses "Gehenna" in 2 places discussed below, one with a footnote that says, "figuratively, hell".

Gehenna is used only in the passages about cutting off hands, plucking eyes, etc. that are found in Mk 9:43-48 and Mt 18:8-9. The same scenario has already been discussed above in Mt 5:29-30, but "hell" rather than "Gehenna" was used there. Note that this monologue by Jesus appears twice in Matthew, once in Mark, and zero times in Luke and John.

Mt 18:8-9 says that if your hand or foot "offends you, cut it off (Aramaic idiom for stop trespassing) and cast it away (stop it) ... better ... life lame ... than 2 hands or 2 feet and fall into the EVERLASTING FIRE ... if your eye offends you, remove it (no Aramaic idiom for something else here) ... better ... go through life with one eye, rather than fall into the Gehenna (figuratively hell) of fire". It makes sense that Matthew might use "Gehenna" to mean hell figuratively, since Matthew uses the literal term, "hell", in 5 other places, one of which is Mt 5:30. The everlasting fire mentioned here appears to be the primary biblical meaning of both "hell" and "Gehenna" in most references. Note that it is the FIRE that is everlasting, not the punishment, except for Mt 25:46, which may well not refer to hell or Gehenna either one.

Lamsa’s Aramaic idiom explanations are helpful here (although there is none for removing the eye shown). Some teach that you should literally cut off hands, etc. if you "sin" in certain ways involving the hand, and so forth. Masturbate twice and you lose both hands! There was probably an Aramaic idiom for removing an eye that the ancient translators missed, so that Jesus probably did not teach us to put the ice pick to the eye after looking at a woman with lust. Yes, it’s adultery in your heart, but, no, I don’t think he wanted to solve the problem by jabbing out your eye, because you could still fantasize about sex even if blind. The most incredulous superstitions attributed to Jesus usually have a logical explanation if we pay attention to little details like Lamsa’s notes about Aramaic idioms.

The other Gehenna reference is Mk 9:43-48. Paraphrasing, if your hand offends you (causes you to sin), cut it off ... better maimed than to be cast into Gehenna. Likewise for the foot and the eye. The word, "Gehenna" is actually used 3 times, one for each body part, in this passage: "Gehenna, where the EMBERS (not the worm!) do not die and the fire does not go out". This was literally true about the physical place called Gehenna at the time. Of course, the fire was not really everlasting there, but as far as people knew then, it never went out, so in their eyes, it may have been everlasting. Remember, people thought the earth was flat back then. Would you be surprised if they thought that the fire at Gehenna was everlasting?

There is NOT a footnote by Lamsa for Mk 9:43-48 about Gehenna being figuratively hell. It says Gehenna, not hell, no footnote. If Mark is read alone without considering Matthew or Luke, there is no reference whatsoever either to hell or to everlasting punishment. There IS reference, however, to everlasting fire and to punishment for evil doers.

Could there be a hell that is not permanent? Absolutely. I have a sneaking suspicion that hell is God’s tool of last resort for those spirits who cannot be reached any other way. Does anyone actually go there? Not for long, I think, but of course, I don’t know. Just remember that Jesus never said that hell is eternal. Mt 25:46 MAY NOT have been about hell.

This is not really an additional sub-topic, just basically a (pardon the expression) footnote to hell. Of the many references in the main topic of punishment, there are at least 4 references to darkness and 6 to fire. The 4 darkness references are Mt 8:12, Mt 22:11-14, Mt 25:30, and Lk 13:25-28. The 6 fire references are Mk 9:43-48 (3 times), Mt 13:50, Mt 25:41-45, and Jn 15:6.

I’m ready to move on to another topic - tired as hell of talking about hell. Note: Regardless of what you believe, don’t ignore it. Discussion of hell is attributed to Jesus in scripture, and that fact cannot be ignored. Just because you don’t like it does not make it untrue. Do not dodge the issue just because it is unpleasant - don’t try to cheat.

Jesus talked about sin, or something related to that term, much more than what the numbers for this topic imply. This section does not include repentance or forgiveness, both of which imply sin. To get a total tally on sin and related topics or antitheses, add the numbers for sin (this section), repentance/salvation, and forgiveness (next sections). This section has only 6 references, all from John.

Jn 5:14 says that "... you are healed; do not sin again, for something worse might happen to you than at first". The context was a conversation about healing on the Sabbath at the pool of Bethesda. Here we have a reiteration by Jesus of the Old Testament notion that bad things happen to those who do bad things, i.e., there is justice, and you’d better be good or something bad will happen. Is this what Jesus meant? Well, yes and no.

Jn 8:34 says that "... whoever commits sin is a servant of sin". In other words, when you do things that you are not supposed to do, you attract that type of behavior. " kid messes with drugs and becomes addicted, starts dealing to support his habit, ends up in jail, is abused in jail by violent sex offenders, becomes a hardened criminal, gets out of jail, and kills somebody: "Whoever commits sin is a servant of sin". Often, sin does bring about bad consequences for the sinner. That’s the "yes" half. What’s the "no" half? It does not always work that way. More on that later under the topic of the problem of evil in the world.

Jn 16:1 says, "I have spoken these things to you so that you may not stumble" (sin). What is sin anyway? Note that Jesus gives no theology of sin. There is no doctrine of original sin with Jesus here, no mention of Adam, not even of Satan. Sin to Jesus basically meant disobeying one of the ten commandments. That may be a bit of an oversimplification. Jesus also included bad thoughts as well as bad actions (for example, lusting after a woman in your heart), but sin is primarily seen by Jesus as a verb, doing bad things, rather than as a noun, man’s evil nature. Jesus did not participate in the phony false-choice modern debate about whether man is basically good or evil. He seemed to already know what we were, but that was not the issue. The issue was what we thought and did. Sin was a verb, not a noun, to Jesus.

In Jn 15:22, Jesus says, "if I had not come and spoken to them, they would be without sin; but now they have no excuse for their sins". Here Jesus introduces the idea that ethics are not static and the same for everyone. If a person does wrong unknowingly, that is perhaps a lesser sin, or possibly no sin at all. So there is more to it than the ten commandments. One person doing the same thing as another could be sin while the other is not sin. Jesus had some common sense in addition to all his other good qualities.

Two verses later, in Jn 15:24, he says, "if I had not done works before their eyes, such as no other man has ever done, they would be without sin; but now they have seen and hated me and also my Father". Sin has much to do with knowledge. This is one reason why the doctrine of original sin and the notion that humans (even babies) are depraved is such nonsense. Infants do not know much of anything. What it right or wrong to an infant? It hasn’t been taught yet. It has no knowledge. How can an infant possibly sin? How can it have a sinful nature? The church has added much artificial theology to real Christianity through the centuries. We do have a sinful nature (in the sense that we are not perfect), but we also have a loving nature (albeit hard to see in some). Both are part of being human. Both also relate to specific responses to given situations (the "works done before their eyes").

There is another indirect reference not counted above. Jn 9:41 speaks of the lack of sin if the "sinner" is blind. See the justice and judgment topic (many pages back) for more detail on Jn 9:41. The idea re. sin is the same as the other references in this section.

We had a strong hint of this notion above. Now Jesus comes right out and says it. Jn 19:11 says that "... the sin of him who delivered me to you is GREATER than yours". The context is that Jesus is talking to Pilate during the passion narrative. The Pharisees, scribes, elders, and chief priests of the temple (Jewish church) had the greater sin. According to the gospels, Pilate just went along with it.

The greater sin! That implies that there are degrees of sin. The Catholics got a few things right with their doctrines of various degrees of sin; mortal, carnal, and whatever else they say. I’m not saying that they got it exactly right, but they have the right idea if Jn 19:11 is correct. Sin is RELATIVE, not absolute. Life is not the simple box of black and white marbles that fundamentalists would have us believe. There is gray.

Mk 2:17, Mt 9:12-13, and Lk 5:31-32 state that healthy people need no doctor and that Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Matthew adds in the middle of this, "go and learn what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice’." Jesus is quoting Old Testament scripture here, connecting the idea of saving sinners to that of the old animal sacrifices, which were offered to the angry and human like Old Testament God for forgiveness of sins. Jesus had mercy on sinners, and gave them a chance to change. It seems to me that he was also pointing out in Mt 9:12-13 that the real God is a God of mercy, and that the Old Testament sacrifices were actually not for God, but for the ancient Jews’ concept of God, i.e., it made them feel better because they thought that the human like God enjoyed smelling the barbeque, it soothed his anger, and so he would forgive them. Jesus did not say that, so I will admit that it is an interpretation, and I might be adding to what Jesus actually meant here. See how easy it is to do that? I bet the authors of scripture did it lots of times while writing the scriptures.

The parable of the lost sheep is a Christian favorite. Mt 18:11-14 says that "the Son of Man has come to save what was lost ... would a man not leave the 99 ... and go in search of the 1 (sheep) that was lost ... rejoice over it more than the 99 not lost ... your Father in heaven does not want one of these little ones to be lost". It sure is nice to leave Gehenna and hell for more pleasant topics, right? God truly is like a loving father who cares for his children. You will be punished for misbehaving, because you must learn the lessons of life, but your father loves you and will do almost anything to bring you back to safety if you become lost in your life. It is so sad that many do not have such fathers (and/or mothers) on earth. Jesus’ message was really not that complicated at all to one who understands how a truly loving parent feels toward the child. Theology is barren by comparison. In fact, sometimes it’s just plain barren compared to anything.

I like the above parable so much that I will also quote Luke’s version of it. Lk 15:4-7 says, "... leave the 99 in the open, and go in search of the one which is lost, until he finds it ... such will be the joy in heaven over one sinner who REPENTS, more than over 99 righteous men WHO NEED NO REPENTANCE". The message of the parable of the lost coin in Lk 15:8-10 is very similar. Now, what’s this stuff about the righteous not needing repentance? Hey, I thought that Martin Luther, Paul, and everyone else said that we are dreadful wretches who ALL need repentance (justification by grace through faith alone). What good Christian believes that there are righteous people other than Jesus who need no repentance? Hey, Jesus DID SAY this one, not me, and once again, we have a repudiation by Jesus of these old decrepit Protestant doctrines that came about as reactions against papal authority and alms giving 500 years ago. Who, then, needs no repentance? Mother Theresa? Larry Jones? Martin Luther King? Oops, I heard that he may have cheated on his wife.

It is somewhat shocking, in light of Jesus’ other teachings, to consider that perhaps some people need no repentance. Maybe Jesus was speaking in relative terms, i.e., exaggerating a bit with language. Maybe what he really meant was that some people needed less repentance than others. Fundamentalists don’t believe in relativism though, so for them, Jesus said that some people do not need repentance, period. Don’t go around assuming that he was talking about you. He probably wasn’t. Same could be said for most of us.

What if repentance means to change your life’s direction rather than just to go to confession or admit to God that you’re not perfect? You mean I’m not saved when I pour all my sins out to God on the alter like the old Jews who burned rams and fatted calves for God to smell and take away their sins? What was that stuff about mercy and not sacrifice? You mean repentance means I actually have to DO something? What a radical notion! I thought I could repent on my knees. You mean I might have to work? Oh, dear.

Before proceeding to more repentance, consider Jn 6:12 (the feeding of the 5000): "... gather up the broken pieces which are left over, so that nothing is LOST". Now, he could have been referring only to bread and fish here, but the Jesus I know is usually referring to bread in symbolic terms. This probably is figurative language for exactly the same messages discussed above, namely that Jesus came to save sinners who are lost.

Repentance is discussed here and also in conjunction with the next main topic, forgiveness. This stuff is hard to classify. Jesus was not a systematic theologian. He had more important things to do. Just follow along and repent.

The 2 references on repentance here are both from Luke: The Pharisee and publican story/parable and the story of Zacchaeus. The themes are very different, at least on the surface, showing the 2 sides of repentance. Is repentance the act of pouring out one’s emotions and confessing to wretchedness or is it the act of changing your ways and repaying what you owe in life?

Lk 18:13-14 (Pharisee/publican story) notes that the Pharisee had just thanked God that he was not like the tax collector (publican). The tax collector then says, "O God, be merciful to me a sinner". He wasn’t just reciting a creed. He said it with much emotion and conviction. See text for details. Jesus then says that "this man (the tax collector or publican) ... was more righteous than the Pharisee". This story is actually a parable directed against men who rely on themselves and think they are better than other people (see text in Lk 18 for detail). Since it was a parable, the meaning obviously extended beyond these 2 particular people. In fact Luke says that he spoke this parable AGAINST the self righteous people mentioned above. This passage illustrates the "get down on your knees, humiliate yourself, confess your wretchedness" side of repentance. This is the traditional Christian definition. Man is evil and must repent of the evil.

There is a good grain of truth in this view, in my opinion. I would say that humans are both good and evil, but we still must repent of the evil. Optimists don’t like to hear this. All must be love and Polyanna. Sorry, optimists, truth must reign supreme over joy. As they said during the L.A. riots, "no justice, no peace"; I would say, "no truth, no joy". We are part evil (for whatever reason), and the sooner we admit it, the better. Many are in denial and hooked on the religious drug called suburban-rose-colored-glasses-feel-good-religion. Repent, suburbanites! You are nowhere near as good as you think you are. I know because I see your hypocrisy. It’s OK to admit that you are a wretch - you can be forgiven. Repentance begins with confession. We are not ALL good.

Lk 19:9-10, the story of Zacchaeus, shows the other side of repentance. Zaccai (Zacchaeus) has just promised Jesus and the people to give half his belongings to the poor and repay fourfold everyone that he had cheated. Jesus says to him, "... today life has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham ... Son of Man came to seek and save that which was lost". Here, the ACTION side of repentance is stressed. This story was NOT a parable. Zacchaeus ACTUALLY promised to do what was indicated above. We don’t know for sure if he followed through with his promise, but Zacchaeus presumably CHANGED HIS BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDE radically. Repentance is more than confessing your manifold sins. It is changing your ways! Suburbanites like this version of repentance better, except for the part about the poor.

These 2 stories in Luke are among the most preached about in the Bible, and in my opinion, rightly so. They illustrate both sides of the repentance issue: confession and real change. And of course, Jesus won’t let us forget this stuff about selling our belongings and giving to the poor. Classist hypocrites either blame the poor for being poor (you’re poor because you’re bad) or try to pretend that they don’t exist: Modern day Pharisees and scribes.

This main topic has 21 references, split into several sub-topics, the first of which is repentance and forgiveness, which sort of continues from above.

In Lk 23:43, Jesus says to the thief on the cross, "... you will be with me in Paradise". The "today" part of this (see text) is uncertain. The thief had just repented (in a sense) by telling the other thief on another cross (who had derided Jesus) that he was wrong. He also expressed his belief in Jesus. Repentance sometimes means words too, in addition to deeds. Most importantly, it means what you are made of inside.

In Lk 24:47, the risen Jesus says that "... repentance should be preached in his name for the forgiveness of sins among all nations; and the beginning will be from Jerusalem". Moderns assume that "his name" is Jesus’, but Jesus was quoting Old Testament scripture here, so it is uncertain, but could still mean Jesus’ name. He connects repentance with forgiveness specifically in this passage.

The Pharisees questioned Jesus’ authority to forgive sins, claiming that only God can forgive sins. Mk 2:10 and Lk 5:24 clearly state that the "Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins". Mk 2:5, Mt 9:2, and Lk 5:20, in the story of the healing of the paralytic, all have Jesus saying to the man that his sins are forgiven. Jn 8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultery, which may well be an add-on to the original text, has Jesus saying to the woman, "neither do I condemn you ... do not sin again". This is one of my favorite stories about Jesus because it repudiates hypocritical bigots who condemn others. Note that I have already confessed to its being a probable add-on to the original gospel story, as was Mk 16:9-16. Nonetheless, Jesus did forgive sins, regardless of the authenticity of Jn 8:11. Plenty of evidence for same also abounds in the other 3 gospels.

The famous story (parable) of the prodigal son in Lk 15:11-32 also stresses forgiveness. It is symbolic either of God’s or Jesus’ forgiveness, or perhaps both. It could also be symbolic of humans forgiving other humans. To summarize, "... he wasted his wealth in extravagant living ... (he comes back home) ... ‘I have sinned before heaven and before you, and I am not worthy to be called your son’ ... (father now says) ... ‘my son was dead and has come to life; he was lost and is found’." Of course, "dead" here was symbolic language, as he was not physically dead. This story is one of the most commonly used for the forgiveness theme by preachers, and with good reason. It clearly shows the loving father aspect of God, a common theme taught by Jesus.

Not only did Jesus forgive sins himself, which the Pharisees said that only God could do, but he told people to forgive others so that they too may be forgiven. Since Jesus forgave sins, did that make him God? Using that logic, if we then obey his commandment to forgive others, would that make us gods too? Theologians can quibble over this stuff, but the bottom line is that Jesus told people to forgive one another. Since there is no doctrine of original sin with Jesus, the distinction between sins and debts or trespasses does not seem to be a major issue. Call it what you want, his meaning is quite clear when it comes to everyday life. It is hard to do (or to let happen?) sometimes, but Jesus made it clear that we must forgive others.

Mk 11:25-26 says, "... forgive whatever you have against any man, SO THAT your Father in heaven will forgive you your trespasses ... if you will not forgive, even your Father in heaven will not forgive you your trespasses". Mt 6:14-15 says the same thing almost verbatim, with "trespasses" changed to "faults". Jn 20:23 uses the word, "sins", in a similar reference: "If you forgive a man his sins, they shall be forgiven to him; and if you withhold forgiveness of a man’s sins, they are kept". This was the risen Jesus speaking to the disciples. The exact meaning of the Johanine reference is less clear than the others here, since it does not include the part about the subject’s sins being forgiven.

Part of the Lord’s Prayer, Mt 6:12 says to "forgive us our offences, as we have forgiven our offenders ...." Notice all the different words being used in these references for sins: Not some philosophical nature of man, just the rotten things that we do to each other. Lk 6:37 simply says to "forgive, and you will be forgiven". Lk 11:4, also part of Lord’s Prayer, is more specific: "Forgive us our SINS, for we have also forgiven all who have offended us ...." Here the terms, "sin" and "offence" are used interchangeably, again, not some theory going back to Adam, just plain old stuff we do that isn’t right. Again, forgiveness of sins has much less to do with going to mass than with forgiving one’s neighbor for allowing his dog to crap in the yard.

This notion was no more popular to Jews in Jesus’ day than it is with some Christians today. Many Catholics apparently believe that going to confession absolves their sins. Some even think that all others but Catholics go to hell. Neither of these heretical Roman Catholic teachings came from the religion’s founder, Jesus of Nazareth, or even from Christianity’s first major heretic, Paul of Tarsus. To the contrary, Jesus made it clear that forgiveness is between you, God, and whoever it is that you are refusing to forgive. He said nothing about burnt offerings, going to the temple, mass, confession, Sunday services, revivals, or anything else of that nature. Once again, the supposed followers are not listening to the teacher. By the way, I don’t have a big problem with most heretics, and Paul was not so bad, but he wasn’t Jesus, and some of his teachings were not Jesus’ either.

Another reference to forgiveness is in a parable of a king and a wicked servant in Mt 18:23-35. Summarizing, the king forgave the servant a debt, but then the servant did NOT forgive others debts owed to him, and treated them shamefully. Jesus then says, "O wicked servant, I canceled all your debt because you begged me ... was it not right for you to have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you ... so will my Father in heaven DO to you, if you do not forgive each man ... from your hearts". This is common sense, right and wrong, fair play, justice. There is nothing difficult to understand about this! The hard part is doing it, not saying it. This is not theology, it is life.

What I can add to the subject is that refusal to forgive others can also make us miserable. There is a period of anger that you must go through because you can’t fake forgiveness in your heart, but once you let go (and it may be gradual), you feel better too. Jesus didn’t say this paragraph, so you can disagree all you want.

In Mt 13:15, Jesus is talking to the disciples about the Pharisees who were being given everything in parables: "For the heart of this people has hardened ... LET them return, and I will heal them". The RSV uses the word "lest" rather than Lamsa’s "let", which creates a seemingly nasty attitude on the part of Jesus to the effect that he did not want them to turn and be forgiven. Lamsa’s translation makes much more sense in light of Jesus’ attitude toward forgiveness, to the effect that there is a loving attitude, even toward his enemies, rather than a nasty one, which is more consistent with the rest of his teachings. Here is an example of how translation error can seriously affect the meaning of what Jesus said. One wonders how many other translation errors have artificially created sayings by Jesus that he never said. This is one reason why we are looking at HOW MANY times Jesus said various things, because if only one instance occurs in one gospel, there is a good chance that the meaning was missed in translation errors through the ages. Several identical translation errors in more than one gospel, on the other hand, are extremely unlikely.

Earlier, we looked at passages where Jesus instructed people to forgive others so that they could be forgiven. He also said to forgive others without making that connection of having your own sins forgiven. Mt 18:22 says in response to a question about how many times should we forgive someone, Jesus says, "seventy times seventy-seven times". The numbers could be wrong, but his point is that one should continue to forgive others. Lk 17:3-4 says that "if your brother should sin, rebuke him; and IF he repents, forgive him ...." In this case there is a condition, "if he repents", which places a different meaning on the subject than implied in Mt 18:22. Luke’s statement sounds more realistic. Is it really possible to forgive someone who does not repent? Well, yes, but in real life, that is extremely difficult for a person to honestly do. Forgiveness of someone who repents, on the other hand, is both logical and helpful, and should be expected of a decent person as long as the repentance is real. Luke’s version does throw some doubt on the unconditionality of forgiveness. Jesus was very concerned about justice, and he was not prone to let injustice be forgiven without being dealt with. Should we forgive those who do NOT repent? The answer is not clear here. In the long run we probably should, but the short run might sometimes call for other actions.

Lk 7:47-48 says that "her sins are forgiven because she loved much, but he to whom little is forgiven loves little ...." Not to get theological here, but this implies that both forgiveness and love are relative, greater and lesser amounts of each, not absolute, on or off. Fundamentalists hate to hear of relativity, especially when it comes from the mouth of Jesus. Here it is again. I suppose that Jesus’ statement here is true to life, i.e., those who are forgiven more love more, but some may disagree. He was speaking of a specific instance here, rather than philosophizing, so there is little doubt that what he said at the time was true in this case. Beyond that, I’m not sure what he meant here, but he did refer to degrees of love rather than absolute love or no love.

The one instance where Jesus definitely did forgive people who were unrepentant was on the cross in Lk 23:34 when he said, "O Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing". This is what we all want to hear, right? We don’t know what we’re doing, please forgive us. When I was scared halfway to hell by some of Matthew’s last judgment-wheat-chaff-hellfire stuff, I kept thinking of this verse in Luke. Maybe Jesus’ thinking progressed? Maybe we won’t all go to hell after all?

In fact, both views are questionable. We discussed earlier how Matthew’s final judgment and hell concepts are almost totally confined to that one gospel, and thus subject to question. Likewise, the unconditional forgiveness (as much as we don’t like to hear this) is confined to one gospel, and it’s only one reference total. Add to this the fact that Luke’s gospel was written for Gentiles, and the people being forgiven here were Roman soldiers, not Jews (the Jews set him up, but the Romans actually carried out the execution), and we have lots of questions to answer. Most of the passion narrative in is all 4 gospels. If unconditional forgiveness is really a central aspect of Jesus’ teachings, why is this passage only in Luke? In light of earlier references, unconditional forgiveness is questionable as a teaching of Jesus. That might not suit your theology, and it might not be what you want to hear, but it’s a fact.

Jesus probably did say something similar to Lk 23:34, because the Roman soldiers truly did not know what they were doing. It was the Jews, not the Romans, who knew what they were doing in having Jesus killed (their teachings, not the Romans’, were the objects of Jesus’ criticism). To extend this one comment by Jesus into a general theology of unconditional forgiveness, however, is a stretch at best and perhaps even a falsehood. As much as I would like to hear it, I’m not at all sure that’s what Jesus meant here. It’s too easy! Remember? Jesus insisted that a price be paid.

Earlier we saw how Jesus taught justification by works, not faith, and how faith could be used to get what you need, but not necessarily for reward in heaven (he did not make a clear connection between faith and eternal life). The passages in this section do place an exception on the "reap as you sow" works theology that Jesus seems to teach, namely that evil works can be forgiven (slate wiped clean) if the person truly repents, which means not only confessing your sins, but also changing your behavior. Granted, faith is very helpful to a person in getting to the point where he would repent, but this is still NOT Pauline justification by grace through faith alone theology. Rather, it is justification by works, as modified by forgiveness through repentance. It is not purely works salvation, but works with repentance is the criteria of judgment rather than how much faith one has. Obviously, there is an indirect connection with faith because one would likely not repent without faith in God, but Jesus does not offer salvation by faith alone.

One of Jesus’ parables about some laborers in a vineyard (Mt 20:1-16) illustrates well the relationship between good works and forgiveness/repentance. Some laborers agreed to a certain daily rate and worked all day. Others started working later in the day, worked only awhile, but were paid the same daily rate for fewer hours. The first group complained that this was not fair. The master reminded them that they were paid what they agreed to work for. One possible interpretation of the parable is that the workers who worked all day represent those born in a Christian home who have done good works all their lives while those paid the same for working less could represent those who did evil (like Paul) but later truly repented and changed their lives.

The parable does not say that the first group was not paid, just that others (conversions) were paid equally for less work. Verse 16 also says that "the last will be first ...." It is not pure works theology, but it is works modified by God’s love (grace) through repentance. Note that NONE of the laborers in the parable were paid for doing nothing, and I dare say that Paul’s conversion experience would have been in vain if he had not repented (changed his ways) afterward.

Pauline evangelicals will now insist that we mere humans are never justified in the eyes of God by our tiny bits of what we think is good works, and that grace is necessary for salvation. Well, this is true, but not necessarily in the Pauline or Lutheran sense. It is true that our good works pale in comparison to God, but God knows this beforehand, and maybe that is not the way God judges us. Jesus never said that works don’t count. To the contrary, he assumes all along that God judges us by our human actions and motives, never even saying that everyone must be forgiven. His non-theology here is incredibly simple, far too simple for most theologians to comprehend: If you do wrong, you need to repent and do right, then God will forgive your previous sins. There is no belief system, church, or faith that can save you. Pauline evangelicals are not consistent with Jesus on this issue. I’m not convinced that Paul himself was either.

If you want salvation (whatever that means in this life and/or the next), do good works, and when you don’t do good works, repent and start doing good works. That is not all there is to it, but that is the crux of justification and/or salvation according to Jesus. Faith helps because it makes you stronger to do more good works, but Jesus does not teach justification by faith, and the notion that we are so inferior to God that our works don’t count is not from Jesus at all. He said, "be ye therefore perfect" (good works), but he also knew we were sinful and weak humans who needed forgiveness. I would summarize his non-theological teaching as justification by God’s love and forgiveness through works and repentance. That may not be exactly right, but it’s closer to Jesus’ teachings than were Paul’s or Martin Luther’s. If you don’t believe that, read the part of the King James Bible that’s in red ink for yourself!

The Holy Spirit is mentioned specifically or via synonym in about 15 places in the gospels. What exactly is the Holy Spirit? Rather than cite personal experience or theology, let’s look at what Jesus had to say about the matter first.

One witness of receiving the Holy Spirit would be when you are given the right words to speak when you thought you didn’t know what to say. Mk 13:11 says, "in the (end) persecution time, do not worry what to speak ... for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit". Mt 10:19-20 is more specific: "When they deliver you up, do not worry as to how or what you will speak, for it will be given to you in that very hour ... for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father, which speaks through you". Lk 12:12 says that the "... Holy Spirit will teach you at that very hour what you ought to say". Lk 21:15, in Luke’s end time narrative, says, "for I will give you a mouth and wisdom" (this does not specifically mention the Holy Spirit, but probably refers to same).

Lk 11:13 asks, "... how much more will your Father give the Holy Spirit from heaven to those who ask him?" John’s gospel goes into more detail about the description of the Holy Spirit. Jn 14:16-17 says, "and I will ask of my Father, and he will give you another Comforter, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth ... abides with you and is in you". Continuing a bit later, Jn 14:26 says, "but the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom my Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of everything which I tell you".

In these passages, the terms, "comforter" and "spirit of truth" are used as synonyms for the Holy Spirit. Spirit is a very difficult thing to define in plain English. The best analogy that I have heard is to compare it to the wind: You can’t see the wind, but you can feel it, and you know that it’s been there after it blows. Words seem so inadequate for something that is almost undefinable.

Both references in this sub-topic are from John. Jn 15:26-27 says, "... when the Comforter comes ... the Spirit of truth ... he will testify concerning me ... you also will testify because you have been with me from the beginning". It is not clear here whether the "beginning" refers to the beginning of time or the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Jn 16:13 says that "... when the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all the truth ...." I am not exactly sure what this means other than a general feeling that God will provide answers when one allows the Spirit of truth to have precedence in life. I do not claim special revelation from the Holy Spirit. I don’t know whether those who make that claim know what they’re talking about or not. Perhaps some do and some do not. You will need someone with more expertise than me to tell you what these 2 passages from John really mean. Make sure the person who tells you is not a liar or a phony. Test his spirit of truth against any known facts he may contradict, and don’t forget to check out the fruits (works) of his spirit.

Jn 16:7-9 says, "... for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you ... when he is come, he will rebuke the world concerning sin ... righteousness ... judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in me ...." Why must Jesus go away before the Holy Spirit comes? The only sensible explanation that I can attempt is to look at it in human terms. Maybe it’s kind of like a second string quarterback who gets his chance to start after the hero graduates from college. Jesus was their leader. All attention was focused on him. The disciples were sometimes timid and uncertain followers who fled and even denied knowing him up until the end, kind of like a talented bench warmer with little confidence. Maybe Jesus had to die before his full message would hit the disciples. Perhaps this is what had to happen, i.e., Peter and the others had to be thrust into leadership roles in order to blossom to their potential, like that second string quarterback. Maybe this interpretation is all wet, but it’s the only one I have, so if you have a better one, let’s hear it.

In Jn 20:22, the risen Jesus says to the disciples, "... receive the Holy Spirit". What can I add, other than to ask how? The answer may vary according to the individual involved. All that I can suggest is to be OPEN and receptive to the ongoing possibility, indeed probability, that the Holy Spirit will come into your life if given the chance. One goal is to have enough faith to receive the Holy Spirit, so even if I don’t know what I’m talking about now, I believe that someday I will, if that be God’s will. Did the disciples understand what Jesus meant in Jn 20:22? Probably not, but how about after Pentecost? Probably so, after the Holy Spirit came.

Just like most preachers, I have tried to weasel out and explain away the following passages many times. This is some of the most unpleasant, negative, scary stuff in the gospels. The meaning is not really clear. I wish it wasn’t there, but I wasn’t kidding about reporting all of Jesus’ sayings, not just those that I liked. This stuff is often referred to as the discourse about the unpardonable sin. That may be a theological stretch, but maybe not. I wish that I could report that this is only in one gospel, but such is not the case. Hear then somebody’s bad news.

Mk 3:28-29 says that "... all sins and blasphemies which men are guilty of shall be forgiven to them, but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit shall never be forgiven, but is guilty of everlasting judgment (or eternal sin)". The context from verses 21-27 is that some called Jesus Satanic, demon possessed, or crazy. Verse 30 says, "for they had said that he has an unclean spirit". So if we interpret this literally, you’d better not call Jesus crazy, because if you do, you have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit and you will never be forgiven. Whew, glad I’ve never done that. All the cuss words and other stuff can be forgiven, but not that. Is this the correct interpretation? Probably not, but I’m still glad as h... that I’ve never told anybody that Jesus was ... (not even going to think it). I told you that you wouldn’t like this, didn’t I?

Mt 12:31-32 says that "... all sins and blasphemies will be forgiven to men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men, and whosoever speaks a word against the Son of Man (Jesus) will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come". The context here was that they had accused Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebub. The verbiage here is different than in Mark, but the literal interpretation elicits another "whew" regarding a different phrase or phrases regarding the Holy Spirit, still not a very comforting thought.

Lk 12:10 says that "... whoever says a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven". Here, it does not say "neither in this world nor in the world to come", but neither does it say "only in this world". Also, the context about casting out demons and such is not present in Luke’s version. Not quite as scary as the other 2 above, but still no picnic.

The usual interpretation by moderate mainstream preachers is that the "unpardonable sin" is not a particular deed or saying, but refers to a person’s stubborn refusal through the years to allow God (specifically the Holy Spirit) into his life, thereby disallowing God from forgiving sins that God would willingly forgive otherwise. This sounds much better than the literal interpretation, but I’m not at all sure that this is what the gospels actually say.

The key could lie in forgiveness itself, i.e., previous discussion about forgiving others in order to be forgiven by God. Perhaps blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is actually refusal to forgive others, which keeps God from entering your life, thus preventing your own sins from being forgiven. This is basically what I believe here, but again, it is not really what the gospels, especially Matthew, say, namely that whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven.

I cannot explain how these passages, which on the surface seem to contrary to other teachings of Jesus, made their way into the gospels. It is possible that the author of Mark was inserting theology into Jesus’ words which were actually not uttered, and the ideas were later adapted by Matthew and Luke, but there is really no evidence of this. It is possible that Jesus said something to this effect, but it was not written down properly. However, there are no notes in Lamsa’s translation about Aramaic idiom here. The Aramaic translates pretty much the same as the Greek, from what we know.

If God really zaps us forever just for a few careless words, then this entire exercise is a waste of time, but I don’t believe that. Nonetheless, these unpleasant quotations should not be dismissed without some serious thought and prayer by the reader. This is not a very nice way to end the section on the Holy Spirit, but my job is to report what’s there.

Western philosophers and the apostle Paul love to talk about body and spirit. They liked to talk about it a lot more than Jesus, because I could only find 5 potential references in the gospels, and some of them could be a stretch on my part.

Mk 14:38 has Jesus speaking to Peter, James, and John at Gethsemane as follows: "The spirit indeed is willing and ready, but the body is weak". The disciples had fallen asleep while Jesus was praying. This is not exactly a philosophical dissertation about body and spirit, although it does provide a contrast of sorts. It could mean nothing more than "you tried to stay awake but couldn’t", not exactly Descartes.

Jn 3:6-8 is more philosophical: "What is born of flesh is flesh; and what is born of spirit is spirit ... the wind blows where it pleases, and you hear its sound; but you do not know whence it comes ... and goes; such is every man who is born of the spirit". This is indeed more philosophical. The beautiful description of spirit like wind is a classic. The interesting question about this passage, however, revolves around the business of being BORN of the spirit. Is this a reference to being born again (reborn) or something even deeper? Could Jesus be implying something here about how people come into the world, some from flesh and some from spirit? Probably not, but the possibility exists.

Jn 6:63 says that "it is the spirit that gives life; the body is of no account...." Ah, that’s sounding more like our friend Paul of Tarsus. The contrast goes without saying.

This may well be a stretch, but bear with me. Lk 8:46, part of a story about a woman who was healed after touching Jesus’ garment, says, "someone has touched me, for I know that POWER has gone out of me". Whoa, what’s this? Jesus talking new age metaphysical stuff? Many in metaphysical churches believe in scientific "power" that flows from one person to another, like mental telepathy. Did some Gnostic slip this into Luke’s gospel or did some Catholic slip a lot more stuff like it out? Oh well, I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.

I’m not sure what Jesus meant here, and it is only one reference, but could Jesus have known something back then that others have begun to claim only in the last 150 years? Could be. If power leaves the healer in a case like this, that implies a unity of body and spirit rather than a contrast. Not a very strong argument perhaps, but we let all sides be heard whenever supported by any facts or rational suppositions.

Perhaps this belongs under the Holy Spirit topic above rather than here. Nonetheless, Jn 4:24 says something that no other gospel says: "For God is Spirit; and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth". If body is contrasted against spirit, could Jesus be saying here that God is not a man? The Old Testament conceived of God as a man-like ghost of a being who enjoyed the smell of a ram barbecue, lived in the tabernacle, and had two arms, two legs, and a head. Can you imagine how the Jews and their neighbors felt when Jesus came along saying that God is Spirit? That was radical stuff for that age.

Was it inserted by a Gnostic author disguised as John? Possibly, since it’s not in the other gospels, but is it contrary to the rest of what Jesus said? I don’t think so. The Holy Spirit is not conceived of as a man. I would contend that it was Jesus, not the author of John, who was teaching the radical stuff about God being spirit rather than human ghost. Critics of this view might well ask me why Jesus never verbalized such an important theme in 3 other gospels. I can’t really explain that. Also, people at that time may not have considered a spirit to be very different from a human ghost anyway, so the point may be moot.

If other sections have made liberals happy, this one should make conservatives happy. I was surprised to find about 31 references by Jesus himself to his own death and/or resurrection, including 19 that include the resurrection as well as the death. It would take no genius to figure out that with his unpopular message, somebody would want to have him killed. History is full of similar examples: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, JFK, and so on. Foretelling your own resurrection from the dead after 3 days, on the other hand, is a horse of a totally different color. Moderns who doubt the validity of a PHYSICAL resurrection must take a second look in light of the evidence in this section. We’ll do the vague stuff first, then work our way toward the more specific.

This sub-section includes 9 references that are not specifically about Jesus’ death, but with Jesus as a prophet in general.

Mk 6:4 and Mt 13:57 both say that "no prophet is belittled except in his home town". Don’t take this too literally. I can assure you that Jesus and other prophets have been belittled in plenty of other places, but it is especially painful to be rejected by those who have known you all your life. It takes a strong person to stand up and denounce such things as racism when your friends and relatives are prejudiced and blind to the truth. In the case of Jesus, it was primarily religious phoniness and bigotry rather than racism, although there was ethnic hatred of Samaritans and others by the Jews. Jesus was a prophet in this situation.

All 4 gospels tell how Jesus predicted Peter’s denial before the cock crowed. Lk 22:34 and Jn 13:38 both say that "... the cock shall not crow until you have denied me 3 times". If you want to make a fundamentalist squirm, find this reference in Mark and Matthew, and figure out whether the cock crowed once or twice before Peter denied Jesus 3 times. The gospels disagree on this trivial detail, but since infallibility includes trivia too, the Bible proves itself to be fallible by disagreeing with itself once again. I wouldn’t lose sleep over the rooster though.

This prophecy by Jesus could have been supernatural vision or just common sense perception. For Jesus to know that Peter was not yet ready to make the supreme sacrifice of martyrdom would not be supernatural. After all, he had known Peter quite a while, and Peter’s bark tended to be louder than his bite. Also, the cock probably crowed every morning, so it takes no genius to figure out that someone will do something before the morning (especially in light of the above referenced conflict about how many times the cock crowed). The point of Jesus’ comment to Peter seems to be that Peter is not yet ready to make that sacrifice. If the cock did crow at the exact moment of Peter’s denial (which it apparently did), this was very likely a miracle of chance.

Lk 24:44 states that "... everything must be fulfilled concerning me", referring to the Mosaic law and Old Testament prophecy. Please note that nowhere is it stated that Jesus magically foretold every event. There are some cases where he almost seems to be fulfilling Old Testament prophecy on purpose, i.e., making it come true, or what we often call self fulfilling prophecy. We have a negative connotation about this in our culture. Self fulfilling prophecy was not necessarily thought of in the same way by the Jews back then; we don’t know. They believed in a lot of magic (if scripture is accurate) but they may or may not have thought that someone who intentionally acts to make a prophecy come true was acting in a manner worthy of disdain. Jesus was not acting to fulfill his own prophecy most of the time. He would do or say something that would fulfill an ancient prophecy by Isaiah or someone else. The motive was not selfish in the sense of a person making a prediction and then cheating to make it come true. Of course, all the prophecy that Jesus fulfilled could have been totally supernatural magic zappo. Scripture does not specifically say either way.

Jn 13:19 says, "I tell you now before it happens, then when it happens, you may believe that I am he" (the Messiah). Jn 14:29, similarly, says, "... I have told you before it happens, so that when it does happen, you may believe". In both of these cases, Jesus was making a prophecy, rather than acting to fulfill a prior prophecy. It may have been supernatural future vision or it may have been that Jesus saw the writing on the wall. The context of these references would lead one to consider the supernatural aspect as a real possibility (see Jn 13-14).

Jn 13:36 (Jesus to Peter) says, "... where I go you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later". Like the cock’s crowing, this is a prophecy by Jesus about Peter. Also like the former example, it was not necessarily magical foretelling. Jesus probably knew that Peter was not yet ready to make the supreme sacrifice, but someday would be. It takes great perception to know something like that, but it does not take magic. On the other hand, supernatural knowledge is not ruled out of the question either. Again, the passage does not specify either way.

Jn 16:25 may or may not qualify as prophecy, depending on your definition: "I have spoken these things in figures; but the time is coming when I will not speak to you in figures, but will plainly explain to you concerning the Father".

Jesus frequently spoke in figures, which is one reason that so many of us disagree so much about what he really did say. I’m sure he had valid reasons for doing so, but the fundamentalists are not alone in wishing that more of his words were interpreted by Jesus himself, because figurative language can be interpreted so many different ways. Of course, a person who honestly pays attention to what’s going on can often understand figurative meanings that a prejudiced or dishonest person cannot. When people are misleading themselves, they cannot see parallels that are obvious to others watching.

Back to the topic at hand. The references above were mostly about prophecy by Jesus concerning the future, but not specifically about his own death and/or resurrection. The next sub-topics will deal with these.

There are about 12 places where Jesus prophesies his death without specifically speaking of his resurrection.

In Mk 2:20, Mt 9:15, and Lk 5:35, Jesus speaks figuratively about his death. Mt 9:15 says, "... the days are coming when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast".

The parable of laborers in Mk 12:1-8 and Mt 21:33-41 speaks of the killing of the master’s son, which again is most likely a reference to the Son of Man, Jesus himself.

Mk 14:41 and Lk 9:44 both say that "the Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men". Mark says "sinners" rather than "men". This is almost certainly referring to the passion narrative which led to the crucifixion. In Mark’s case, the saying is uttered just before same.

Mt 20:22 is probably also a reference to Jesus’ death: "Can you drink the cup that I am ready to drink? ...." He was addressing James and John here.

Mt 26:2 is much more specific: "The Son of Man will be betrayed to be crucified". No symbolism there.

In Lk 22:15, Jesus says to the disciples, "I have greatly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer". Obviously, at this late date, he was referring to the crucifixion.

Lk 22:22 says that "the Son of Man will go, just as he has been destined ...." This is probably also referring to the crucifixion.

In Jn 12:30-32, Jesus is responding to a voice that had just come from heaven to the effect that "I am glorified and I shall again be glorified". Jesus says that "... this voice was not on my account, but for your sake ... now is the judgment of this world; now the leader of this world will be cast out ... I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw every man to me". The next verse says that Jesus said this to show by what kind of death he was to die. Of course, this sounds like a prophecy of the resurrection and ascension also, but the author’s note throws some doubt on that assumption.

It should come as no great surprise to anyone that Jesus knew that he would likely, if not certainly, be killed. There is no reason to assume magical supernatural soothsaying here. He was not preaching a slightly heretical doctrine in 20th century America. He was turning the Jewish religion of the day on its head. His message was more comparable to Salmon Ruschke’s book that caused the Ayatola of Iran to put a contract on his head! This was not the age of democracy and tolerance, but rather the age of slavery and the hostile Roman Empire. Many prophets before Jesus had been killed for what they had said about the evils of the nation of Israel. Anybody with half a brain could figure out that this guy was about as popular in Jerusalem as was Martin Luther King in Selma, Alabama in 1963. It took no supernatural power to know that he was about to die for what he was doing.

The same cannot be said, however, of the next sub-topic. Common sense would tell you that you’re about to die when it’s becoming obvious, but to rise from the dead two days later, well, that’s a different story.

Here is where the liberal who doubts the literal physical resurrection must confess to be out of step with the words of Jesus himself. How could someone who is just a great prophet and person possibly know in advance that he would rise from the dead (even if he wasn’t all the way dead) two days after he would die? I was surprised to find SO MANY references that say just that.

Mk 8:31 indicates that Jesus taught the disciples that he would be killed and rise on the third day. Mk 9:31, Mt 16:21, and Lk 9:22 indicate likewise. Lk 9:22 says that "the Son of Man must suffer ... they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise". Mk 10:34 says almost exactly the same words as Lk 9:22.

Mk 14:28 says, "when I am risen, I will be in Galilee before you". Mt 26:32 says likewise.

Mt 12:40 says, "For as Jonah was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights". Now, it was actually more like two days and two nights by my count, unless you count Thursday night as a night and Sunday (he rose early in the morning) as a day, but we won’t quibble over trivia.

Mt 17:9 says, "do not speak of this vision in the presence of anyone UNTIL the Son of Man rises from the dead". The obvious implication is that Jesus will rise from the dead.

Mt 17:22-23 says that "the Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men and they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise up". Again, Mt 20:18-19 repeats almost the exact same sentence. Lk 18:31-33 gives more detail: "... all things written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be fulfilled ... he will be delivered to the Gentiles ... and (they will) kill him; and on the third day he will rise again".

Lk 13:32 says to "go and tell that fox (Herod) ... on the third day I will be finished". This also implies a resurrection.

Lk 24:25-26 (risen Jesus) says, "O dull minded and heavy-hearted, slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken; did not Christ have to suffer all these things in order to enter into his glory?" This quote is different from the others thus far in that the word, "Christ", is used by Jesus to describe himself. This may come as a surprise to you, but Jesus almost always used the phrase, "Son of Man", occasionally "Son of God", and once or twice "Messiah" or "King of the Jews", but not "Christ" (until here). Read Lk 24:26 again. It sounds almost as if Luke forgot that Jesus was speaking and put his own statement into Jesus’ mouth, i.e., "did not Christ have to suffer ...." sounds a lot more like Paul speaking than Jesus. Nonetheless, the context more than implies that this is a physical resurrection. This reference, like the next one, is an after-the-fact proclamation rather than a future prophecy.

Lk 24:46 (also risen Jesus) says, "thus it is written, and it was right, that Christ should suffer and rise from the dead on the third day". Again, the word, "Christ" is used BY Jesus (not about Jesus by someone else), which is unlike all earlier references in the synoptic gospels. The context here almost demands interpretation as a physical resurrection unless the entire story is metaphysical, which is a bit far fetched in my opinion. Also, it specifies again "the third day". That’s pretty specific.

Though not a before-the-fact prophecy, Lk 24:39 (risen Jesus) says, "look at my hands and my feet, that it is I; feel me and understand; for a spirit has no flesh and bones, as you see I have". This is about as clear as it can be stated that Jesus is referring to a physical resurrection. Keep in mind that this is in Luke’s post-resurrection material.

John’s references to this sub-topic are less specific, but nonetheless supportive of the claims made by the synoptics, namely that Jesus not only physically rose from the dead, but predicted it with pinpoint accuracy ahead of time.

Jn 2:19 says among other things, "... tear down this temple and in three days I will raise it up ...." The author goes on (v. 20-22) to explain that Jesus was referring here to the temple of his body.

Like many synoptic references, this specifically mentions three days as well as the resurrection.

Jn 10:17 includes a reference to laying down (Jesus’) life so he can take it up again. This is a likely future reference to the resurrection.

Jn 14:18-19 says, "... I will come to you after a little while ... the world will not see me, but you will see me". This sounds like a reference to the resurrection. What does it mean? It could mean that the resurrection will not be a physical one ("the world will not see me") but rather one of the mystical spirit ("but you will see me"). On the other hand, it could also mean that Jesus will not choose to reveal himself to the unbelievers ("the world"), but will physically rise and show himself to the believers ("you").

In one of scripture’s most beautiful quotations, Jesus says in Jn 16:16, "a little while, and you will not see me; and again a little while, and you will see me, because I am going to the Father". To fully appreciate its meaning, one needs to read the context in John, which is among Jesus’ last discourses with the disciples. It seems to say that Jesus will die ("you will not see me"), but then will be resurrected ("you will see me"), but whether the resurrection will be a physical one or a spiritual (only) one is not clear.

However, the gospel of John does make it clear that the resurrection was physical. Though not entirely spoken by Jesus, Jn 20:24-29 makes it about as clear as a physical resurrection can be made clear. The famous account of "doubting Thomas" explicitly says, among other things (Jesus speaking to Thomas, John 20:27), "... reach out your hand and put it into my side". This account is claiming a physical resurrection. Metaphysicians must stretch the truth until it breaks to get a non-physical resurrection from Jn 20:24-29.

Liberals and metaphysicians must humbly admit that when it comes to the question of a physical resurrection based on scripture’s own testimony, the conservatives win the argument hands down. It’s not even a contest. So that settles it, right? Chalk up one for orthodoxy. It’s had some setbacks so far, so this evens up the score some.

Whatever it was exactly that happened at the resurrection, Jesus’ own prophecy about it beforehand is almost as amazing as the resurrection itself. Other than the lack of Pauline justification by faith theology, these predictions by Jesus of his own resurrection were the biggest surprise to me as I conducted this study.

As far as the scriptural testimony from Jesus’ mouth in the 4 gospels (not including the post resurrection accounts) is concerned, Jesus probably prophesied a physical resurrection, but might have prophesied a non-physical spiritual resurrection. As far as the overall testimony of the gospels is concerned (including the post resurrection and non-Jesus testimonies), he definitely prophesied a physical resurrection after 2 or 3 days.

This is another "biggie", second only to the kingdom/end time, with loads of references and sub-topics. Once again, it’s the liberals who will squirm a bit as we deal with the "Son of God" stuff that makes universalists uncomfortable.

In the rich young ruler story (Mk 10:18, Mt 19:17, and Lk 18:19), Jesus responds with the following question/comment (Mk 10:18): "Why do you call me good? There is no one who is good except the one God". Christians of all types have all sorts of interpretations to offer on this statement, but taken at face value, Jesus seems to be saying that only God is good, and that he (Jesus) is human, hence not deserving of the term, "good", which probably had more significance than we attach to the word today, perhaps meaning something closer to what we might call "absolute good". This troublesome (for conservatives) statement by Jesus is likely authentic, since it appears in 3 gospels in the same context. In all 3 cases, the young man uses the phrase, "good teacher" while asking a question. Jesus is first responding to the use of "good teacher", and then he proceeds to answer the question. We are dealing here with the former.

Take the above with a grain of salt, however. He makes the statement in the context of comparison to God, not to other people. Also, Jesus practiced what he preached about being humble. It would not be stretching Jesus’ message that much to say that he might refuse to call himself good because this would be a sign of self-righteousness, which is wrong. In other words, Jesus was good, but just wouldn’t say so because that would make him seem too much like the self righteous Pharisees.

There is also another possibility that the exact same words mean something else. Perhaps his question, "why do you call me good?", was rhetorical in nature with an implied answer of "because you are the Son of God" or something similar. Since he then says that only God is good, maybe he’s indirectly claiming to be God here rather than denying that he is good! That really is another possibility. Due to the fact that the context of this statement is basically as a side comment, it is hard to tell which interpretation (or another) is correct. Also, the man does not answer the question, but answers Jesus’ next question, which changes the subject, so we are left guessing what Jesus meant here. Therefore, this passage might not be an argument for the position that Jesus was different from God at all. The question is debatable.

Jn 5:19 says that "... the Son (Jesus) can do nothing of his own accord, except what he sees the Father (God) doing ...." In spite of being whoever and whatever he is, he still can do nothing without God. If he WAS God, would this make sense? This could be an indication that Jesus is not actually God, i.e., Son of God means something else.

There are about 15 references, most but not all from John, which imply an exclusive relationship between Jesus and God, or that Jesus is God. Mt 11:27 says that "everything has been delivered to me by my Father, and no man knows the Son except the Father, nor does any man know the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son wishes to reveal him". This could be interpreted to mean that only Christians (not Buddhists, etc.) know the real God ("whom the Son wishes to reveal him"), but it does not really say that.

During a conversation about the Sabbath in Mt 12:6, Jesus says, "but I say to you that there is one here who is greater than the temple". He was apparently referring to himself (the Messiah), although the meaning could be more mystical-spiritual in nature. No doubt that Jesus was unique for his time, but for all time? This does not say definitely but implies so. It might even imply that Jesus is God.

Lk 22:69 says that "from henceforth the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of the power of God". Again, this could have various meanings, but seems to imply an exclusive relationship between Jesus and God, although this does not seem to say that Jesus IS God.

The rest of the references are all from John. Jn 3:13 says, "no man has ascended to heaven except him who came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven". This was Jesus speaking, although the famous Jn 3:16 was probably not. Jn 3:13 implies exclusivity for sure, but wait! Interpreted literally, this means that only Jesus came down from heaven AND that only Jesus went to heaven! What about Abraham, who is described in Luke’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus as being in heaven? Perhaps the Son of Man is not Jesus per se, but rather a spirit which pervaded Jesus? How else does Jn 3:13 make sense in light of all the other things Jesus said about the kingdom of heaven and those who go there?

Similarly, Jn 6:38 says, "for I came down from heaven, not merely to do my own will, but to do the will of him who sent me". I included this reference in this section only because of the "for I came down from heaven" part, which can be related back to Jn 3:13 above. It probably implies an exclusive relationship to God, perhaps that Jesus was God.

Jn 8:58 is an often quoted passage, "before Abraham was born, I was", or as the RSV says it, "before Abraham was, I am". Obviously this refers to a pre-existing spirit, a la orthodox Christian theology according to John, in rather strong terms. Does this mean that Jesus is God? Some claim that all human spirits were present at the creation of the universe, but we don’t remember while bound in these physical bodies. If that claim is true, Jn 8:58 does not even make Jesus unique. However, the claim could be true, and also Jesus could be unique among spirits. Jn 8:58 certainly implies that Jesus is unique, and certainly could be interpreted to mean that Jesus is God, but it does not specifically state that.

Jn 10:30 says that "I (Jesus) and my Father are of one accord". Does that say that Jesus is God? Again, it could be interpreted that way. Maybe so, maybe not. It might just mean that Jesus agreed with God, or something similar.

Jn 14:6 is a problem for universalists: "I (Jesus) am the way and the truth and the life; no man comes to my Father except by me". Sorry Jews and Hindus, you just got zapped; or could "me" refer to a spirit (of love?) whereby anyone may come to the Father?

Similarly, Jn 14:9 says that "he who has seen me has seen the Father ...." That’s about as close to "Jesus is God" as you can get without coming right out and saying it. Again though, who/what is God, the Father? If God is a man, then Jesus is probably him, but if God is spirit, the meaning changes to something more like "he who experiences the spirit that dwells in me has experienced the essence of God which fills me". That’s not the same as "Jesus is God" in the sense that fundamentalists and conservatives mean it.

Jn 14:11 continues: "Believe that I am with my Father and my Father is with me; and if not, believe because of the works". As an aside, here’s one more plug from Jesus for works and against the Pauline justification-by-grace-through-faith-alone doctrine. Does Jn 14:11 say that Jesus is God? If Jesus IS God, why is it necessary to say that he is WITH God? Interpreted in the spirit-filling sense, however, there is no conflict. In fact, in that sense, "Jesus is God" would be true, i.e., Jesus was filled with the spirit of God.

Jn 15:23 says that "he who hates me hates my Father also". I have never heard of an honorable non-Christian like Gandhi or Mohammed who hated Jesus. This reference could but does not necessarily imply exclusivity, uniqueness, or that Jesus is God. The verse is true though, isn’t it?

Jn 17:5 is another direct reference to the pre-existing spirit of Jesus: "... the same glory which I had with thee before the world was made". That’s about as strong a statement as one would need on that subject, i.e., Jesus, in some way, was around at the creation of the earth and probably at the creation of the universe! Many metaphysical churches believe the same to be true of many or all other human spirits as well. Jn 17:5 does not say either way on this, except for Jesus. There can be little doubt that either John is wrong or Jesus was present when the world was created. Are you going to say that John was wrong? Does anyone really know? It does not contradict known experience, so why not believe it? Remember, we are almost surely speaking of spirit here, not body. We can’t prove it with science or logic at this time, but it may well be true.

Again in Jn 17:24, the above point is explicitly made again: "... thou (God) hast loved me before the foundation of the world". Note that this does NOT say that Jesus is God! It says that God loved Jesus even before the world was created. If Jesus WAS God, why would he even say this? Yet John teaches that there is a definite unity in the spirits of Jesus and the Father as well. I guess it’s no wonder that the Trinity is such a debated concept. Spiritual meanings tend to defy common language and we disagree as often about the right words as about the real meanings.

In Jn 20:17, the risen Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, "... do not come near me; for I have not yet ascended to my Father ...." Obviously a physical resurrection would imply uniqueness, but also the point about ascending to the Father implies a very special relationship as well. Again, there is a spiritual union between Jesus and God, but it does not say that Jesus was God per se.

Was Jesus God? Even the strongest advocating references for special status of Jesus from his own mouth do NOT clearly say that Jesus is God incarnate in the Pauline, fundamentalist, and/or orthodox senses. Rather, they seem to be saying that God is a spiritual essence which so permeated Jesus that he was one with God. Did Jesus BECOME one with God or was Jesus’ spirit one with God from the beginning? John emphatically states, from Jesus’ own lips, that Jesus’ spirit was present at the creation of the earth, if not before. Since I wasn’t around at the time (or don’t remember it if I was), I guess I can’t really argue the point, can I? The primary problem with John’s view is its lack of mention in the synoptic gospels. They don’t deny it, but they don’t promote it either.

Was Jesus unique compared to other great prophets? If the gospels, especially John, are to be believed, absolutely yes. Was he the ONLY Son of God? John’s author says "yes" (John 3:16), but Jesus himself does not specifically say this, although he may have implied it several times. What does "Son of God" mean anyway? Perhaps the next sub-topic will shed some light.

This sub-topic has a whopping 40 or so references, mostly from John. We will first look at synoptic references.

Mk 12:10, Mt 21:42, and Lk 20:17 all say that "the stone which the builders rejected became the cornerstone". The context was a parable of laborers where the evil servants beat and killed various persons sent by the master, and finally killed his son. The obvious reference is to the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders of the day who had killed prophets and would have Jesus killed as well. Jesus, the Son of God, was sent by God.

In Mk 12:35-37, Mt 22:45, and Lk 20:41-44, Jesus claims that he is more than the son of David. In Lk 20:41-44, he asks, "how can the scribes say concerning the Christ (Messiah) that he is the son of David? ... if therefore David calls him ‘my Lord’, how then can he be his son?" As a brief aside, kindly note that Jesus may well be denying that he is a descendant of David here, which would contradict both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies! That might not be the correct meaning though.

The passages above, contained in all 3 synoptic gospels, have a very high probability of being authentic. Mk 13:31 says that "heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away". This passage and others like it from Matthew and/or Luke have already been discussed re. the kingdom of God. Obviously, Jesus is making a claim of authority here.

In Mk 14:62, in response to a question by the high priest, "are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?", Jesus answers, "I am". This is a clear claim to be the Messiah and Son of God. This particular version of the passage is only in Mark, however.

In Mt 16:16-17, Peter says that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus blesses Peter for the statement, thus implying that it is true.

Mt 28:18 has the risen Jesus saying that "all power in heaven and earth has been given to me ... as my Father has sent me I am also sending you". Again, this implies that Jesus is the Son of God.

Even in his youth, Jesus seemed special. When his parents were looking for him, Jesus replied with, "did you not know that I would be in the house of my Father?" One might question whether this isolated account is authentic. Supposedly, he was about 12 years old at the time, a full 18 years before most of the rest of his story. Also, it is only in Lk 2:49, not in the other gospels. It could be authentic though. Jesus’ brother, James, later became an apostle and could have remembered such an event easily. Luke, a companion of Paul, could have found out about it through others in the early church.

In Lk 4:21, after Jesus had quoted Old Testament scripture about the anointed one who would preach good tidings to the poor, he said, "today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears". The anointed one was the Messiah.

The synoptics make it clear from Jesus’ own words that he was the Messiah (Christ) and the Son of God, as well as the Son of Man. Note that we have not really gotten a firm definition of what these terms mean from these passages. We will look at what John has to say for more light.

In Jn 4:26, Jesus says to the woman at Jacob’s well, "... I am he (the Messiah) who is speaking to you". Here, he clearly claims to be the Messiah or Christ.

Jn 5:21 says, "for just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to those whom he will". It is uncertain whether life and death here include physical resurrection as well, or just the spiritual life that Jesus spoke of in John. He claims to be the Son of God here, as he also does in Jn 5:23: "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who SENT him...." Jn 5:36 says that "... the Father has SENT me". Jn 5:38 says that the Father’s "word does not abide in you, because you do not believe in him whom he has SENT". What does "Son of God" mean? God had a baby? The passages in this paragraph all clearly refer to Jesus as the Son of God, and all specify that he was SENT by God. Maybe "Son of God" means "sent by God". Does it mean more? Perhaps.

Jn 5:43 says, "I have come in the name of my Father", which is almost like saying that he was sent. Jn 6:29 says that "... you should believe in him whom he has sent". Jn 7:16-18 says, "... my teaching is not mine, but his who sent me ... he who wills to do (God’s) will can understand if my teaching is from God or if I am just speaking of my own accord ...." Jn 7:29 says that "I (Jesus) know him (God); because I am FROM him, and he SENT me". Again, "Son of God" seems to mean "sent by God".

Jn 7:33-34 says, "... I am going to him who sent me ... you will not find me; and where I am you cannot come". Jn 8:24 (Jesus to the Jews) says, "... for unless you believe that I am he (the Son of Man), you will die in your sins". Jn 8:28 says that "... when you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will understand that I am he, and I do nothing of my own accord; but as my Father has taught me ..." Jn 8:42 says that "... I did not come of my own accord, but he (God) sent me". Jn 8:54 says that "... it is my Father who honors me, the one of whom you say, He is our God".

Just in case any liberals thought that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, sorry, you were wrong about 40 times. He does it over and over in John: "Son of Man", "Son of God", "Messiah" (or "Christ"), all of them. The question is, what do these claims mean? Are we talking magic babies or special prophecy? Magic babies are questionable. Special prophecy is almost a definite. He claims to be much more than just another prophet. Yet "Son of God" seems to mean "sent by God", just like other prophets. Nonetheless, "Son of God" seems also to mean a good deal more. It does imply uniqueness as compared to other prophets. Jesus is like the other prophets, but is also special. That should come as no great surprise, given that an entirely new religion sprung forth from his life.

Jn 8:55 says, "... I do know him (God), and I obey his word". Jn 9:35 is about as blunt as you can get: "Do you believe in the Son of God? ... he is the one who is speaking with you". Is "Son" literal and physical or is it figurative and spiritual but non-physical? Perhaps a clue in Jn 10:11: "I am the good shepherd ... risks his life for the sake of his sheep". As far as we know, Jesus was not physically a shepherd, and the disciples were definitely not sheep. Why should we believe, then, that God had a magic baby named Jesus? Maybe the literal Virgin Birth happened and maybe it didn’t, but Jesus’ point in John is the spiritual one, that he was sent from God. This is what the controversy with the Pharisees was all about. There was no argument about the virgin birth. The argument was about whether Jesus was from God or Satan! Should that be so hard to figure out? Magic babies, if there were any, would be signs pointing toward the more significant fact that Jesus was SENT by God, and therefore, his teachings were TRUE.

Jn 10:34-37 is a most interesting discourse. Jesus says, "is it not so written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods?’ If he called them gods because the word of God was with them (and the scripture cannot be broken), why to the one whom the Father sanctified and sent to the world, do you say, ‘you blaspheme’, just because I said to you, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me". These verses cover several topics, most of which will be discussed later. It also reaffirms Jesus’ works theology. For the topic at hand, it simply says for about the umpteenth time that Jesus is the Son of God. There can be no doubt about this claim, according to John. As we have seen earlier, the synoptics also make the claim, albeit less frequently.

There is more. Jn 12:44 says, "... he who believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me". Don’t take this too literally. Jesus probably meant here that the believer is not trusting ONLY in the man, Jesus, but in God through him.

Jn 13:20 says that "he who receives him whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me". This is similar to earlier statements by Jesus in John.

Jn 13:31 says, "... now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified by him". The familiar "Son of Man" phrase is consistent in all 4 gospels, despite John’s unique character.

Jn 15:1-5 is a figurative discourse by Jesus: "I am the true vine, and my Father is the laborer ... every branch in me that does not bear fruit, he cuts off ... you have already been pruned because of the word which I have spoken to you ... remain with me ... you are the branches ...." The branches here refer to the followers of Jesus, later the church, similarly to the concept of the church as the body of Christ, except here it is branches of a vine. Some will be cut off because of unfruitful behavior. Exactly what the "you have already been pruned" means is uncertain. Pruning is, of course, cutting off, but not totally cutting off, rather trimming. Perhaps this means that the disciples have passed the test of discipleship in spite of their shortcomings (pruned but not cut off).

In Jn 16:28, Jesus says, "I came forth from the Father and came into the world; again, I am leaving the world and I am going to the Father". This is, of course, another among many prophecies by Jesus of his own death, as discussed earlier. It also implies a special relationship of Jesus with God, more than just a prophet.

Jn 17:1-4 is an extended discourse by Jesus: "... O my Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son, so that thy Son may glorify thee ... he (Jesus) may give life eternal ... and this is life eternal, that they might know thee, that thou art the only true God, even the one who sent Jesus Christ ... I have already glorified thee on earth; for the work which thou hadst given to me to do, I have finished". This obviously implies a special relationship of Jesus to God and a oneness of Jesus with God, but does not specifically say that Jesus is God.

It is uncertain whether Jesus actually uttered all of these words, because this is the only place where Jesus refers to himself as "Jesus Christ", the most common reference by Paul and the church, but not normally by Jesus himself. Often John mingles Jesus’ words with his own, so that sometimes it is hard to distinguish which is which. This is one of those times. Some would claim that most of the book is the author of John’s (rather than Jesus’) words, but we will assume that Jesus said most of what is attributed to him. Why? Frankly, do you have any better ideas? Are there any compelling reasons for believing that most of John is not authentic (from Jesus)? I see no obvious contradiction with the synoptics. The emphasis is different, but that does not prove contradiction.

Jn 17:11 says, "O holy Father, protect them (disciples) in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one". Here Jesus is NOT claiming an exclusive relationship with God, but rather a unity, not only of Jesus and God, but the disciples as well. Those who believe that God is a man and the man is Jesus will have a difficult time explaining this one. This is about oneness, the topic that metaphysical churches like to promote.

Continuing in Jn 17:21-23, Jesus says that "... they (disciples and their disciples) all may be one; just as thou, my Father, art with me ... they may become perfected in one; so that the world may know that thou didst SEND me ...." There’s that word again (send). Also, notice that this is one of the few places where Jesus talks about perfection. Also, notice the unity theme again.

In Jn 20:21, the risen Jesus says, "... just as my Father has sent me, so I send you". He is talking to the disciples here. One more time, that "s" word, send.

Many of these references in this section have specifically referred to Jesus as the Son of God and have also specified that God sent Jesus, almost as if to define "Son of God" to mean "sent by God". Jesus spoke in figures other than parables, especially in John. Those who interpret "Son of God" to mean "magic baby" are, in my opinion, missing the point. So was the virgin birth a fable that developed through time? Likely, but it is entirely possible that there was a "magic" virgin birth which actually happened in history. The point is not whether or not a particular physical miracle happened in history, but rather to know that Jesus was sent by God to perform a saving ministry, which he did.

Was Jesus just the world’s greatest prophet of God who BECAME one with God, or was he the pre-existing Christ who created the universe with God? According to John, the answer is the latter. However, there is nothing about this pre-existing theme in the synoptic gospels. Could it be theological additions to Jesus’ actual words by the author of John? There are reasons to question some of John’s assertions which are not common to the other gospels, but little if anything in John actually contradicts the other gospels either. Jesus may well have existed before Abraham as stated in John. I do not know. What I do know is that Jesus taught what he taught, and he lived it in history, and he taught us how to live and showed us how to love, even in death. He taught us the greatest love ever known in human history. Isn’t that enough to make him more than just one more great prophet of the Jewish tradition?

There are about 20 more references, other than atonement, which deal with the main topic here. Some are unclear in meaning, at least to me. They occur in all 4 gospels, so we will begin with Mark as usual.

In Mk 10:40 and Mt 20:23 (which we will quote), Jesus is speaking to Peter, James, and John as follows: "... but to sit at my right hand ... that is not mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by the Father". One could make a case for predestination from this verse, but I think it’s a weak case and will explore it no further. Notice the distinction here between Jesus and the Father. This does not sound like Jesus IS God.

In Mk 11:33, we assume that Jesus is speaking from God’s authority although he actually says, "I will not tell you (Pharisees and/or scribes) by what authority ...." I told you these were miscellaneous.

Another vague reference is Mt 11:6: "Blessed is he who does not stumble on account of me". This seems to imply a special relationship to God, but I’m not at all sure what.

Mt 23:9-10 says, "call no one on earth, father, for one is your Father in heaven ... nor be called leaders, for one is your leader, the Christ". This is one of few places where Jesus uses the word, "Christ", apparently about himself. A special relationship (Christ, Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God) with God is definitely implied here.

Mt 27:46, according to Lamsa, has Jesus saying on the cross, "my God, my God, for this I was spared" (this was my destiny) rather than the RSV’s "why hast thou forsaken me?". That’s quite a difference based on Aramaic idiom that was apparently mistranslated for western Bibles. Lamsa’s translation makes more sense. The RSV makes it sound like Jesus was upset with God (Jesus changed his mind at the last minute about dying on the cross?) for his predicament. Lamsa’s translation points out even more clearly a special relationship of Jesus to God without specifying what it is.

Lk 6:39-40 asks, "can a blind man guide a blind man? ... no disciple ... is more important than his teacher". The teacher was Jesus, the one who claimed to be the Son of God.

Lk 22:70 is interesting in that Jesus does not say (here) that he is the Son of God. The chief priests asked if Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus’ reply was "YOU say that I am". I will not attempt to unravel this one.

Lk 23:3 has Pilate asking Jesus if he is the King of the Jews. Again, Jesus replies with, "YOU say that I am". The other gospel accounts are different on these details. Again, I will refrain from delving into this for lack of knowledge in the area.

John has about 10 more references on this miscellaneous sub-topic. John 1:51 says that "... from now on you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of Man". It is noteworthy that this was early in Jesus’ ministry, not in his last days, and that it says "from now on", presumably including the period before the crucifixion. I am not sure whether this is supposed to be symbolic or whether there were somewhat unreported angels floating about for a goodly period of time.

Other miscellaneous references come from the sixth chapter of John. Jn 6:46 says that "no man can see the Father except him who is from God ...." This probably assumes Jesus, but does this mean that nobody else can see God? Perhaps. Jn 6:51 says, "... I came down from heaven; if any man eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread which I will give is my body, which I am giving for the sake of the life of the world". "Bread" is obviously symbolic here. What "body" means here is uncertain (literal or symbolic?). Some would claim this to be a statement of traditional atonement doctrine. It doesn’t say that. It could mean that Jesus must die before the disciples can lead the world in the new church. "Body" could be symbolism for the future church, the "body" of Christ. This does not say that Jesus died as a ransom for the sins of the world. That is only one of several possible interpretations. Jn 6:65 says, "... no man can come to me unless it is given to him by my Father". Jesus, of course, refers to God as his Father all through John and often in the synoptics as well. Oddly, many of Jesus’ followers turned away from him after he said this. I’m not sure why. It does not appear to be that radical, but maybe I’m missing something about the Jewish custom and language of the time.

Jn 10:37-38 has already been cited regarding good works: "If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me, but if I am doing them, even though you do not believe in me, believe in the works, so that you may know and believe that my Father is with me and I am with my Father". The significance here is the familiar Son of God theme. This could possibly shed some light on the "unpardonable sin" theme. Could blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (as opposed to the Son) be when a person no longer recognizes good works as good?

Other brief statements of Jesus about his relation to God follow: Jn 12:23 says that "the hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified". Jn 12:27 says, "O my Father, deliver me from this hour; but for this cause I came to this very hour". Jn 13:33 says, "... and just as I said to the Jews, where I go you cannot come; the same I now tell you also". Jn 14:19 says that "... because I live, you shall live also". Jn 16:3 says that "... they have not known my Father nor me". Jn 17:25 says, "... I have known thee ...." (God). Jn 18:23 asks, "... if I have spoken any evil, testify to the evil; but if it is good (of God), why did you strike me?" In Jn 19:11, Jesus says to Pilate, "... you would have no authority whatsoever over me if it had not been given you from above ...." All of these passages point to Jesus’ special relationship with God, the spiritual Father-Son relationship.

There is an orthodox atonement doctrine from Paul that states that Jesus died for the sins of the world, a ransom of the "blood of the lamb", which somehow through a cosmic event, brings about salvation for all (except those who refuse to accept it) forever. This magic ransom theology is fundamental to fundamentalists and conservatives. What did Jesus himself have to say about it?

The author of Luke (not Jesus) may have planted a seed for an idea in Lk 22:7 stating that it was a (Jewish) custom to kill the Passover lamb. For the orthodox atonement theory, the Jesus count is zero for, zero against. It is not discussed at all by Jesus.

There are other seeds from Jesus about a more rational view of Jesus’ sacrifice. Mk 10:45 and Mt 20:28 state that the "Son of Man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life as a salvation for the sake of MANY". This does not say "the whole world". What does "many" mean? You need not believe in the atonement to believe these passages. "Many" may well have meant the many followers (disciples) of Jesus, who might have all been killed in the violence against Jesus had he sought another outcome than the one he did. There is no magic ransom theology here unless one reads it into the passages.

In Lk 22:20 (the Lord’s Supper), Jesus refers to "my blood which is shed for you". In exactly the same sense as the previous paragraph, this does not state orthodox atonement doctrine unless the reader wants to make it that. Hear what you want to hear, but then ask if it’s the truth.

Jn 10:17 says, "this is why my Father loves me, because I lay down my life so that I may take it up again". This implies a resurrection but not a magic ransom atonement. Jesus’ point here does not concern an atonement doctrine, but rather God’s love. The next verse points out that Jesus’ actions were voluntary, thus showing an even greater love, but there is no atonement doctrine here.

In Jn 11:48-51, Caiaphas (not Jesus) speaks of one man dying instead of the people. This likely states the same point made above, namely that many would have probably died because of the political situation between the Romans and Jews at that time if Jesus had not sacrificed himself willingly. One can see how an atonement doctrine could grow out of something like this, but there is no atonement doctrine in the gospels. Paul proclaimed it several years after Jesus left the historical scene. The doctrines of the atonement and of justification by grace through faith alone were related to Paul’s attempts to free Gentile Christians from the details of Jewish law (see Romans, chapters 3 through 5). Neither were teachings of Jesus.

In a sense, Jesus did die for the sins of the world. As we saw above, he probably did literally die for Peter and the other disciples when he chose to surrender to the authorities and told Peter (or whoever it was) to put down the sword. Later, there was the Resurrection and Pentecost, which resulted in the Christian religion and church, which later resulted in the 4 gospels being written. Because of all this, most (if not all) people on earth have access to the witness of Jesus’ saving love through the scriptures. Therefore, virtually anyone on earth can be saved from their sins if he/she chooses to accept Jesus and attempt to follow his teachings. In this very indirect historical sense, Jesus died for the sins of the world. If he had decided to chicken out or fight rather than surrender to an unjust death (the greatest love), we probably would not have a New Testament or Christian religion today. In that event, we might not have the benefit of his saving grace and teachings. Because he died the way he did, we have the story of his life preserved for our salvation from sin. Jesus died for our sins indirectly through history by starting a chain of events that resulted in the 4 gospels and other witnesses of his saving love.

This is a far cry from a magic ransom blood atonement doctrine. Neither the salvation history atonement described above nor the blood atonement doctrine taught by Paul was taught by Jesus in the 4 gospels. If you read Jesus without knowledge of Paul, there is no atonement doctrine unless the reader invents one by reading between the lines. If the reader did not already know of Paul’s writings, he/she probably would not be reading between the lines anyway. Where is it written in scripture that Jesus must agree with Paul? Who is the Son of God? Jesus or Paul? Jesus didn’t teach the atonement doctrine. Paul did. Was Paul infallible? Does the husband rule over the wife’s body? See I. Corinthians 7:4 and decide for yourself, but Paul was either infallible or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t, then his atonement doctrine could be wrong.

This topic has about 11 references which show similarities and differences between the two.

Mk 2:21-22, Mt 9:14-17, and Lk 5:37 all have Jesus speaking about how one would not put new wine in old skins or sew an old garment with a new patch. He was responding here to a question about why John’s disciples fasted but his did not. His meaning here is apparently that the fasting of John’s disciples were the old way whereas Jesus’ way was the new way.

Mt 11:18-19 and Lk 7:33-35 also contrast the two. Quoting Matthew, "John the Baptist came neither eating or drinking, and (this generation) said, ‘he is crazy’; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they said, ‘behold, a glutton and a wine-bibber’ ...." Again, the contrast between John and Jesus concerns fasting and abstaining from wine.

There are also two other points in the preceding discourse. First, Jesus did drink wine. Modern day Baptists who would turn wine to grape juice have a lot of explaining to do about these two passages. Jesus was not a drunkard, but why would anyone accuse him of same if he only drank grape juice? The Pharisees were self righteous hypocrites, but they were not dumb enough to think that someone could get drunk on grape juice. The second, and more important point, is that despite the contrast between Jesus and John, these Pharisees were determined to find fault with anyone who questioned their authority. They criticized John for not eating and drinking, and then criticized Jesus for the exact opposite. Does that sound like anyone you know?

Despite their differences about fasting and such, there were similarities between Jesus and John.

Both were preaching repentance and the kingdom of God. Mk 9:12-13 and Mt 17:12 both refer to John the Baptist as the spiritual Elijah who has come to prepare the way for Jesus.

I included the next passages in this section, but one could argue that they point out more differences than similarities. I will quote from Mt 11:10-14 although some of the same material is also in Lk 7:28 and Lk 16:16: "... (John) is he of whom it is written, ‘behold I send my messenger ... to prepare the way before you’ ... among those who are born of women, there has never risen one greater than John the Baptist; and yet even the least person in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he ... from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been administered by force, and only those in power control it ... the prophets and the law prophesied until John ... he was Elijah who was to come".

Being at a loss myself, I will leave it to the reader to figure out what the above passage means in total. It shows some more similarities between Jesus and John (preparing the way, prophecy, etc.) but also differences (least in kingdom greater than John).

There are other passages which speak of John’s similarity to Jesus, but not from Jesus’ lips.

Lk 7:22-23 says, "go and tell John everything ... the blind see ... lame walk ... the poor are given hope ... blessed is he who does not stumble on account of me". This could be counted as a similarity, but it doesn’t really say that. It is just a message from Jesus to John. Historically, Jesus and John were contemporaries, although John was beheaded in prison before Jesus was crucified, so the last part of Jesus’ ministry was without John’s physical presence.

Jesus had very little to say regarding the debate about whether man was basically good or basically evil. He had even less to say of the same question about woman.

Mt 7:11 and Lk 11:13 (quoted here) say, "... so if you who err know how to give good gifts ... how much more will your Father give the Holy Spirit from heaven to those who ask him?" We have already covered the main topic of this passage, namely faith. It is the "you who err" that we will look at here. Lamsa notes that the word translated as "err" means to lie or do evil. Jesus plainly said, then, that people do evil things. Is this the doctrine of original sin? Does it mean that man is basically evil? That’s not what it says. It says that people err, they’re not perfect. Is that some grand revelation or doctrine we didn’t already know? There is no sin theology here, just a plain observation of the obvious. The fact that we err was not even the point of Jesus’ statement. The point was that God (who is perfect) will give even greater gifts than man who is not. Did he say that man is basically good? No way. He said that even less than the opposite. He said neither here, just that we err, and last time I checked, we still do.

Another indirect reference to this subject is the story of the rich young ruler contained in several of the gospels. Once again, this is an aside by Jesus, not the main point of his discourse. Lk 18:19 (and parallels in Mk and Mt, see Jesus’ relation to God) has Jesus asking the man why he called him (Jesus) good and that nobody is good except God. Exactly what Jesus meant by this question to the rich young ruler is not certain. Also, Jesus tended to use the word "sinner" in connection with tax collectors and harlots whom he condemned far less than the Pharisees that he did not refer to as sinners. In other words, Jesus used the term as defined by the culture of the times. He was not spouting theology when he spoke of sinners. On the man is evil versus good question, Lk 18:19 would have to be counted on the evil side if it is counted at all.

Jn 8:7 has Jesus saying to the Pharisees, "... he who is among you without sin, let him first throw a stone". The context is the woman caught in the act of adultery. The Pharisees wanted to stone her, but they backed off after these words by Jesus. The implication for the subject at hand is that since nobody threw a stone, therefore all people are sinful by nature, and that implication is a gigantic stretch. I always liked this story because I do believe that all people are imperfect, and holier-than-thou hypocrites make me sick. Being fair though, I must confess that general scholarly consensus is that Jn 8:7 (in fact the whole story of the woman caught in adultery) is an add-on, i.e., not present in the earliest texts (which were around 400 A.D.). A likely scenario is that the "man is evil" doctrine had taken hold in the church by then and the story was added (probably with some historical justification) to the original gospel of John. This being the case, we really can’t say too much about Jn 8:7 at all.

Jn 15:5 says that "... without me (Jesus) you can do nothing". Some take this to be a statement of man’s utter sinful nature and total dependence on God through Jesus. It does comment about our dependence on God (even through Jesus) to be sure, but it does not state anything about an utterly sinful nature.

In short, Jesus clearly said that we sin but he did not clearly say that we are sinners in the sense of the doctrine of original sin or the "man is utterly evil" motif.

In Jn 10:34-37, the Pharisees had accused Jesus of blasphemy, making himself God. Jesus says the following: "... is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? ... if he called them gods because the word of God was with them (and the scripture cannot be broken) why to the one whom the Father sanctified and sent to the world, do you say, ‘you blaspheme’, just because I said to you, ‘I am the Son of God’?" Frankly, this passage is confusing. Does this mean that people are gods (notice, small g) and therefore good? Remember, he also said that nobody is good except God. I don’t know the answer, but this passage could be used as an argument toward a "man is good" theology, although I think that’s stretching the truth more than a bit. If there is a statement by Jesus for such a position, this is it, but the argument is very weak.

Jesus had precious little to say about the nature of man, period. What he did say was mostly side remarks in other contexts, and therefore, very uncertain as to meaning. Jesus was not a theologian and most certainly not a philosopher in the traditional sense. Is man basically good, basically evil, basically both, or basically neither? What did Jesus say? On this subject, next to nothing!

The passage above mentions that scripture cannot be broken. Aha, the fundamentalists finally found that verse from Jesus’ own lips that the Bible is infallible! Wait a minute. Since when does "cannot be broken" translate to "infallible"? Jesus was referring to the Old Testament law that Jews were not supposed to break. Also, the remark was a side comment. There is nothing here about scripture being inerrant or verbally inspired.

In Mk 2:24, Jesus says that he is of God, not Satan. He illustrated this with the saying about a kingdom divided against itself not standing. In Mk 3:23 and Mt 12:25-28, the Pharisees had called Jesus crazy and said that Beelzebub was with him. Jesus replies by asking "how can Satan cast out Satan?" In Lk 11:18-20, Jesus says, "... you say that I am casting out devils through Beelzebub ... but if I cast out devils by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God is come near you".

Few today claim that Jesus came from Satan. Even many Jews and others who do not accept him as the Messiah acknowledge that he was a great prophet. This was not the discussion in Jesus’ time. His enemies accused him of being from the devil, Beelzebub or Satan. Who or what is Satan?

Mt 4:10 doesn’t say who Satan is, but Jesus is speaking to Satan (the temptations in the wilderness) and says, "get away, Satan, for it is written, you shall worship the Lord your God (only) ...." Satan appears here to be the mythical evil spirit with a body and ears, for Jesus is speaking to him. Of course, this is the literal interpretation. The words could also have a more symbolic meaning, Satan simply being temptations and speech being thoughts. The whole story could also be a myth. Jesus was alone (except for Satan?) during this exchange. How did Matthew know about it? Jesus could have told him later, but why would such a dramatic encounter between Jesus and Satan be omitted from the other gospels? Remember our earlier examination of Matthew (the Jewish gospel) regarding the last days, eternal punishment, etc.? The effect of Zoroastrianism on Jewish thought shows again here in Matthew, the dualistic evil force is confronted directly by Jesus in Matthew but not in the Gentile gospels. Satan is not entirely omitted in the others, though.

In the interpretation of the tares parable, Mt 13:39 says that "the enemy who sowed (the tares) is Satan". This is definitely dualistic, showing another power, Satan, at work in the world.

Likewise, Lk 10:18 (after the 70 disciples had returned) says that "I saw Satan falling like lightening from heaven". This is also dualistic in its view of Satan. Wait just a minute here! You mean to tell me that Satan had been in heaven before this? The meaning seems to be more like "from the heavens" than "from heaven". That would make more sense. Satan was already considered the evil spirit long before this trip of the 70 disciples. If Satan was a fallen angel from heaven, he fell a long time before this (especially if the story of the temptations above is believable). Jesus’ statement is probably figurative, i.e., Satan falling from the sky symbolizing the triumph of the gospel over evil during the mission of the 70. Nothing else makes sense unless Satan fell from the skies (not heaven) and landed near Jesus who saw it. Satan would not have been in heaven at this point unless our entire understanding (traditional and otherwise) of Satan and heaven is totally wrong (which is, of course, possible).

In Lk 22:31, Jesus says to Peter, "... Satan wants to sift all of you like wheat ...." Again, this is a rather dualistic reference to Satan. Again, it could be symbolic. Literal or symbolic, Jesus clearly says that there is an evil force in the world (unless ALL the above quotes did NOT come from Jesus, which is possible, but not likely). Unlike the optimists in many metaphysical churches, Jesus did NOT say that "there is only one presence and one power in the universe ...." (affirmation of faith in Unity School of Christianity). If Satan is symbolic, the symbolism is for evil, which is another power. Jesus speaks of a dualistic power, lesser than God but nonetheless present in the world. Either the passages of scripture above are wrong or else God is not the only power in the world.

Satan is not a major theme of Jesus, however. Those who wish to argue for unity rather than dualism could claim that the 7 or 8 references above were add-ons to the authentic gospel, and a decent case could be made for such a view. Satan is certainly not mentioned as much as the kingdom, faith, good works, Jesus’ kinship to God, and other major topics. To deny Satan would not be a total stretching of the potential truth. It may be noteworthy that there are no references to this dualistic Satan in the semi-Gnostic gospel, John.

In Mk 8:33 and Mt 16:23, Peter had objected after Jesus prophesied his own death and resurrection. Jesus’ reply was, "get behind me, Satan ... for you are not thinking of the things of God, but of men". Obviously, this statement is not literal, because if Peter is Satan, then Satan has the keys to the kingdom of heaven and is the rock of the church! Satan symbolizes here the part of us that places our own interests before God. Jesus knew that he must die, whatever the theological meaning of that death, in order for God’s work for him to be completed. Peter did not want to hear this. The Satan within Peter did not want to allow God’s will to be done because of the great sacrifice involved. Jesus refers to Peter as Satan here in a fashion that is a figure of speech. Peter was not the prince of demons, but Jesus used the term because Peter was rejecting God’s will. Metaphysicians say that Satan is a purely symbolic concept as described above, and that there is no personal Satan or power of evil in the world. This reference by Jesus to Peter as Satan could be a metaphysical statement or just a common figure of speech, much like calling someone a turkey, knowing full well that the person has no wings.

A similar statement by Jesus is in Jn 6:71: "Did not I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is Satan?" This, of course, refers to Judas Iscariot. Now, if Satan is a man, how can he be both Judas and Peter? Lamsa notes that Satan in Aramaic means "one who causes slipping and sliding and missing the mark". In other words, Satan is almost an adjective rather than a noun, in the sense that Satan is not one being with a body, but rather manifests itself in many people, much like "liar". There is not one person called liar but rather many people who wear the title because of what they have done. Jesus seems to be referring to Judas as Satan here in that sense, as a figure of speech. After all, if Judas was literally Satan, why would Jesus choose him as a disciple? If he did choose Satan to be a disciple, wouldn’t there be something said about that in at least one of the gospels? This language is obviously a figure of speech.

One potential advantage of belief in a Satan power is that we can blame Satan for all the evil and claim that God is purely loving and never punishes anyone, but that Satan sends all those sinners to hell, not God. This is NOT what Jesus said. In fact, Satan, if there is really a Satan at all, is the sneaky rationalizing tempter, not some fire breathing beast-monster-ghost that fights God on the battlefield of life. Satan is portrayed by Jesus as a sneak and a liar, not a tyrannical dictator.

In Mt 18:35, Jesus had told a parable about an evil servant who would be punished. He says, "so will my Father in heaven DO to you". Christians who believe that God is love do not like to hear this kind of statement. How could God be so mean? We’d rather say that the man punished himself because of his behavior or that Satan punished him, especially if the punishment is hell. Nonetheless, Jesus clearly says here that God, not Satan or man, does the punishing. Keep in mind, however, that this is only ONE reference, and it is from Matthew, who also happens to be the ONLY gospel with a clearly everlasting damnation in hell or an absolute wheat-chaff separation at the end of the world. This seems to be some more of Matthew’s Zoroastrian influenced post Maccabean Judaism here. John almost contradicts this approach with its expose about how the Father does not judge (see prior sections).

It is not clear from the total witness exactly how this punishment process works, but Jesus does NOT say that Satan sends us to hell or punishes us. Satan, if there is one other than ourselves, tempts us and we choose to follow him (it) rather than God. Satan is not portrayed by Jesus as being co-equal with God in the purely dualistic sense of the Persian Zoroastrian religion that influenced post exilic Judaism (and Matthew). In fact, he seems to be more of a nuisance than a monster, just a sneaky snake of a tempter who causes slipping and sliding, hardly comparable in power with God.

Now we will discuss Duke and DePaul, the devils and demons. Most modern interpreters say that the "demons" of the Bible are actually mental illnesses or spiritual afflictions of some sort, or possibly a physical condition which "makes people crazy" such as epilepsy. None of these little blue and black ghosts have been sighted lately flying in and out of people, so we figure that pre-scientific man thought that strange behavior was caused by supernatural demons. Today we know better: The only demons are on the basketball court, or at least, it seems that way.

The story of the healing of the epileptic in Mk 9 speaks of the epilepsy as a demon. Mk 9:25 says, "O deaf and dumb spirit ... come out of him ...." Following, Mk 9:29 says, that "this kind (of demon or dumb spirit) cannot be cast out by anything except fasting and prayer". We might add, "and some time for the epileptic fit to subside". Scripture does not actually use the word, epileptic, to describe the afflicted person. The symptoms (uncontrolled spasmodic movement and foaming of the mouth) are those of an epileptic, so that the captions in most modern Bibles refer to this miracle as the healing of the epileptic boy. In those days, nobody had ever heard of epilepsy. The boy had a demon, or so people back then thought.

Another more direct reference to demons (above says deaf and dumb spirit, not demon) is Mt 12:27: "So if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by what do your sons (Pharisees) cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. And if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come near to you". Notice that this ASSUMES that the Pharisees also cast out demons! Jesus is NOT saying that he is from God because he can cast out demons and others can’t. The enemies of Jesus also cast out demons!

Mt 12:43-45 and Lk 11:24-26 contain some of the strangest sayings of Jesus: "When an unclean spirit (demon?) goes out of a man ... waterless place and seeks rest and does not find it ... it comes back and finds it empty, warm and well furnished ... it goes away and brings ... seven other spirits worse than itself, and they enter and live in him, and the end of that man becomes worse than the first ... will happen to this evil generation". This could be a metaphysical saying that means that we should hold our angry tongues lest we tick people off and cause ourselves more misery than when we started. It could also be some really strange ancient language that makes no sense today, with demons jumping around inside of people, coming and going as they please. Your guess is as good as mine.

A more sophisticated concept of Satan and/or devils is that they are symbols for evil as a force. There are a couple of references by Jesus to evil apart from the symbols. The most famous one, the Lord’s Prayer, is in Mt 6:13: "... deliver us from evil ...." Lamsa notes that evil here means error, wrong, wickedness.

Jn 17:15 says, "... protect them (the disciples) from evil". Jesus does not philosophize about evil. He assumes that people know what it is. Why should it be any different today? Why dodge the truth by denying that evil exists? Jesus didn’t.

Note that Jesus had little to say about evil as an idea or concept. He had a lot to say about specific instances of evil, although he might not have used the term in all cases to describe them. Many of the following sections will deal with these specific evils. First though, let us see what Jesus had to say about the greatest philosophical stumbling block of Christianity.

As you might expect from this non-philosopher, Jesus had little to say on this topic, but there are a few tidbits to the age old question: If God is both all loving and all powerful, why are there evil and suffering in the world? Augustine said that it’s because our free will chooses the evil, and God, though omnipotent, allows us the choice of evil. This ignores natural evil like tornadoes and floods that kill good people while the wicked prosper. Anselm said that evil does not really exist. It is unreal. So in fact do the Christian Scientists. I have my honest Christian Scientist test for you: I’ll bang on your knee with a hammer, and when it gets real, you yell and I’ll stop! Ah, but there’s another one, the universal reincarnationist explanation for the problem of evil: We choose our parents and our lives, including all the suffering, even before we are ever born. There is some evidence for part of this notion, but carried to its logical extreme, it leads to total predestination and social apathy, i.e., I chose all my suffering on earth in a prior life (down to every gnat’s you-know-what detail), so you should not interfere with the God ordained misery that I chose before birth, therefore apathy is superior to love as a social ethic, and I have NO social responsibility whatsoever! There could be some truth in reincarnation (or just incarnation without the reincarnation), but this kind of universal theologizing has no basis in science, scripture or verified historical human experience.

The Old Testament is full of reward-the-righteous theology. If you do good, you will be happy, rich, etc., but if you do evil, you will be punished. What did Jesus say? No half baked philosophical mumbo-jumbo, but no definite answers either. Let’s take a look at five passages.

Mt 5:15 says, "... so that you may become sons of my Father in heaven, who CAUSES his sun to shine upon the good and the bad, and who pours down his rain upon the just and the unjust". This does not sound like the Old Testament. Jesus indirectly acknowledges here that the righteous are not always rewarded and the evil punished IN THIS WORLD.

Lk 13:2-5 offers some interesting thoughts on this subject: "Do you think that those Galileans were GREATER SINNERS than all the other Galileans, because this happened to them? NO ... if you do not repent, (you) will perish in the same way. Or those 18 upon whom the tower in Shiloh fell, and it killed them, do you think that they were greater sinners ... NO ...." Jesus’ main point in this discourse is that people should repent, not that evil exists in the world. Nonetheless, he makes it clear here that bad things do happen to people sometimes, and it is not because they are greater sinners. In other words, he is repudiating the Old Testament notion of equal and just reward and punishment by God for actions in this world. His overall message seems to replace this world with the next world, i.e., there will be justice, but we just don’t see it all yet. Justice will be served in the last days, but not necessarily in these days.

In both of the above passages, Jesus expresses the existential problem of evil in the world, but he does NOT attempt to explain WHY. Neither, by the way, does the book of Job.

This idea is fairly dominant among Jesus’ teachings, but I only found one reference that seems to emphatically tie this idea with the problem of evil in the world. Mt 13:30 says in the parable of the tares, "let them (the good and the evil) both grow together UNTIL the HARVEST ...", after which the wheat (good) will be harvested (saved) and the tares (evil) will be destroyed. The letting them grow together until the harvest seems to symbolize the problem of evil with good in the world, without a clear reason why, otherwise known as the existential problem of evil in a world created by a good and loving God. Why must this be? Jesus says to wait until the harvest.

One possible justification or rationale for the problem of evil is that evil is necessary for God to use to create good. John’s gospel expresses this idea twice. Jn 9:3 says (about the man born blind), "... neither did he sin nor his parents ... but that the works of God might be seen in him". Of course, Jesus healed him via a miracle. Jn 11:4 (concerning Lazar’s resurrection) says, "... this is not a sickness of death, but for the sake of the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified on his account". In other words, Lazar’s death and his friends’ mourning were for the purpose of proving God’s power through Jesus’ resurrection of Lazar. Evil was used by God for good.

Is this a justification for the problem of evil? Perhaps, but Jesus does not offer it in this way. He merely points out that God uses evil for good. He does not really say that this is the reason that evil exists in the first place. One might ask, why would God (all powerful who can do anything he wants any way he wants) need to have evil to create good? Because of free will? Jesus does not answer these questions. As mentioned earlier, he was not a philosopher.

Jesus does not have any nice summarizing conclusions about the problem of evil. He seems to acknowledge it as a temporal reality, but emphasizes instead the next life and judgment day. He also points out in John that God uses evil for good. He does not explain the problem of evil. He leaves it to faith, as did Job. We do not know why evil exists, why the righteous suffer while the evil prosper. Jesus did not come to give us that answer. We are supposed to have faith anyway, even without this explanation. Jesus leaves the answer to faith in God. Trust God that there is an answer. We just don’t happen to know it yet.

That’s kind of what Jesus said, I think, namely that the only explanation we have is "I don’t know", and we’re supposed to trust God anyway. I think he was trying to tell us not to worry so much about why evil exists in the world (leave that to God), and to worry more about DOING good in the world.

This topic is mainly about material wealth, but there are brief references to spiritual wealth also.

Mt 6:24 and Lk 16:13 indicate that a person cannot SERVE both God and "mammon", which Lamsa notes is properly translated as WEALTH. This does not say that one must not be rich, but that one cannot serve wealth and also serve God.

Mk 10:23-25, Lk 18:24-25, and Mt 19:23-24 (aftermath of the rich young ruler story) say that it is "... difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom ... easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom ...." Lamsa’s translation of "rope" makes more sense than RSV’s "camel", but both are totally impossible. In fairness though, it must be pointed out that the following verse in both gospels points out that all things are possible with God. Nonetheless, Jesus’ point about the difficulty of the wealthy finding the kingdom still holds. It is not impossible, but very difficult. He implies here that it is more difficult for the rich than for the poor. Why else would he specify, "rich man"?. He does not say why it is more difficult for the rich. Most preachers that I’ve heard point out that a rich person tends to rely on the money, which brings many material things, and begins to forget God, the true source of all good things. In other words, human nature tends to trust in whatever has brought success in the past. When this thing is money, it is easy to forget that money cannot buy some things. The poor person already knows this and must rely on God, for he has little else to rely on. As the fundamentalist might say, the road to hell is paved with gold. I’m not sure I’d say that, but there is a grain of truth in it.

The rest of the "wealth is bad" references come only from Luke. Lk 6:24-26 would not make Rupert Murdoch or even Pat Robertson very happy: "... woe to you, rich men! ... you have already received your comforts ... woe to you who are full! ... you will hunger ... woe to you when men speak well of you! ... so did their fathers to the false prophets". If we take this too literally, we could conclude that the only way to get to heaven is through South Central L.A., Bangladesh, and Rwanda, i.e., you better not eat or be happy in this life or else. I don’t think that’s what he was saying here, although I can’t prove it.

Perhaps the key is the reference to the false prophets. Those who preach comfortable falsehood while the poor suffer will have to face their maker and themselves for their self inflicted lies and apathy. False prophets usually are rich, for they have a way with words that leads people toward them: Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, etc. (we’ll only list the ones who have been convicted of felonies or caught with hookers, although we could list many other false prophets). Of course, it is possible that these verses came from Luke rather than Jesus, since it is not found in the other gospels.

Lk 12:15 is more palatable: "... beware of all covetousness, because life does not depend on abundance of wealth". In other words, don’t keep up with the Joneses. Money cannot cure cancer, at least not yet. Bewaring of covetousness is easier said than done, but Jesus was right on the money, so to speak.

Lk 16:19-31 has already been discussed at length in the section on hell and punishment. This is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The poor beggar goes to heaven. The rich man goes to hell. The Bible is infallible, but so many fundamentalist preachers are rich! How can this be? I guess they’re all going to hell. I don’t really mean that, but a reincarnation as a poor atheist might serve them right for their insincerity. Jesus had no patience with rich hypocrites, and he wasn’t much nicer about it than I’m being right now, in fact, less so. I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is. Read your Bible!

Luke’s gospel comments about a different kind of wealth. Lk 12:19-21 says, "... you have ... things stored up ... rest, eat, drink, and be happy ... O you shortsighted man, this very night your life will be demanded of you; and these things which you have prepared, to whom will they be left? Such is he who lays up treasures for himself and is not rich in the things of God". Lk 12:33 says, "sell your possessions and give them as alms; make for yourselves ... a treasure in heaven that does not run short ... for where your treasure is, there also will be your heart". These passages are also very unfriendly to materially rich people, but speaks of a spiritual wealth that does not perish.

Many excuses are made by upper-middle class suburban churchgoers for ignoring what Jesus had to say about material wealth. Jesus said to sell your belongings and give them to the church or the poor. I can understand not having enough guts to be homeless or not having enough faith to risk it, but I cannot understand lavish suburban yuppie houses and other needless materialistic luxuries that have nothing to do with survival or even comfort, but rather with prestige, status, and ego. The teachings of Jesus are a stark contradiction to the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Easier for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle.

Lk 16:9-13 (after the parable of the unjust steward) says, "... use this earthly wealth, however acquired, to make friends so that when it is gone, they will receive you and you will have everlasting habitation. He who is faithful with little is also faithful with much; and he who is dishonest with little is also dishonest with much. If, therefore, you are not faithful with the wealth of iniquity, who will believe that there is any truth in you? And if you are not found faithful with that which is not your own, who will give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters ... you cannot serve God and mammon (wealth)". I repeated verse 13 here again to give the entire quote by Jesus on the subject. This passage is somewhat confusing, but the main thrust seems to be the business about being faithful with little (material things) and much (spiritual things). This passage can be used by biased interpreters to mean all kinds of stuff, from justifying rip-offs to spiritualistic double-talk to glorifying rich people, if portions are taken out of context. Don’t be mistaken. Jesus was not rich with material things, nor does he want you to be. That may not be what you wanted to hear, but that is what he said. Read it for yourself, America.

Related to material wealth is John’s reference to "the world". This could also refer to the physical world in general, although that is debatable.

In Jn 7:7, Jesus said to his brothers who did not believe in him, "the world cannot hate you; but it hates me, because I testify against it, that its works are evil".

In Jn 8:21-23, Jesus says to the Jews, "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sins; and where I am going you cannot come ... I am not of this world".

Jn 16:33 says, "... in the world you will have tribulation; but have courage, I have conquered the world".

Jn 17:14 says, "... the world hated them, because they were not of the world, just as I am not of the world".

Obviously, these references are at least partially symbolic since Jesus never conquered the world in the military sense. Jesus spoke of a higher reality, hence the lower reality was referred to as the world. He probably did not mean the universe or planet earth, but the material interests of the world. He may have been referring in some sense to the physical planet itself, but the only thing that is crystal clear is that he was referring to the material interests of people.

Twice in Luke, Jesus uses this language. Lk 9:5 says, "... whoever will not welcome you, when you leave that city, shake off even the sand from your feet for a testimony against them". Again in Lk 10:10-11 at the sending out of the 70, Jesus says that if "they do not receive you, go out into the street and say, ‘even the sand of your city ... we shake off to you’ ...."

Some say that this represents leaving negativism behind, and this may be so, but Jesus seemed to be upset with those who would not receive the disciples. This shaking of sand seems to represent a witness against those who rejected the gospel. Jesus was not always smiling.

Jesus used the term, light, to describe his spiritual being. The synoptic gospels primarily use light as meaning not hidden, whereas John contrasts light versus the world.

Mt 5:14 says that "you (disciples) are the light of the world", meaning here that light is not hidden or in secret. The next 2 verses describe a "lamp not hidden, let thy light shine before men that they may see your good works".

Lk 11:33-35 says that "no man lights a lamp and puts it in a hidden place ... the lamp of your body is your eye ... take heed, therefore, lest the light which is in you be darkness".

Lk 16:8, part of a strange (to me) parable of an unjust steward, says that "... the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light". I think this means that the materialistic people of that day were skilled at dealing with material things, perhaps more so than the followers of Jesus with the spirit. I would not bet the farm on that interpretation though, because, frankly, I don’t know what he meant here.

Jn 8:12 says that "... I am the light of the world; and he who follows me ... shall find for himself the light of life". Jn 9:5 says, "as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world". Jn 12:35-36 says to "... walk while you have the light ... believe in the light, so that you may become the sons of light". Jn 12:46 says, "I have come into the world as the light ...." These passages need little interpretation, as Jesus was using the light to refer to himself and the spirit of God. The emphasis in John is slightly different from the synoptics, but light still seems to mean also that there is nothing hidden, the synoptic meaning.

This topic follows from the last in that the emphasis is again on the fact that nothing will be hidden. There are also other references to truth which I placed here. Although the specific references by topic are few, Jesus assumed honesty and truth throughout his ministry. This is not a minor topic.

Mt 5:14-16 was mentioned above and could just as well have been placed in this section. Additionally, Mt 10:26 says that "there is nothing covered that will not be uncovered, and hidden that will not be known". Lk 8:17 adds to this, "and come to light". Mk 4:22 says that nothing is hidden that will not be uncovered and "nothing done in secret that will not be revealed". Lk 12:2 adds that there is "... nothing that is covered that will not be uncovered; and hidden that will not be known". These passages could also be used to demonstrate that God knows all. Nothing is hidden from God. You can lie to yourself, but you cannot lie to God.

John also chimes in. Jn 10:1-11 says that "... he who does not enter by the door ... but climbs up from another place, is a thief and a bandit ... I am the door of the sheep ... if any man enter by me, he shall live ... a thief does not come, except to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they might have life ...." Jn 18:20 adds, "... I have spoken nothing secretly". Jesus had no place for deception and behind-closed-door meetings.

John also speaks of truth in general. Jn 8:32 says, "and you will know the truth, and that very truth will make you free". Jn 8:44 says, "you (the Jews or Pharisees) are from the father of accusation ... lusts of your father ... murderer ... he is a liar, and the father of lies ... because I speak the truth, you do not believe me". Presumably, Jesus was not referring to Moses here as the father of lies, but the possibility exists. Jn 18:37 says, "... for this I was born ... that I may bear witness concerning the truth ... whoever is of the truth will hear my voice".

Jesus never uttered a word about a "white" lie or a justifiable lie, in spite of strong evidence that he taught some situation ethics (see previous sections). If there is a justifiable lie, it is rare, not one out of every two times, as seems to be the popular view now. Truth was an extremely high priority for Jesus. I think he would agree that if it isn’t the truth, nothing else matters, regardless of how nice it may sound. For me, this is the first test of anything. Even love that is not honest is not real love. Superficial kindness to cover hatred does not last. Nothing is hidden that will not be known. I could preach a sermon, but on to the next topic.

This section could be called the law of mind action in reverse, that is, all evil actions begin with evil thoughts from within.

In the context of Jewish laws against certain foods, Jesus responded in Mk 7:15, Mk 7:20, Mk 7:23, and Mt 15:11 (quoted) as follows: "It is not what enters into the mouth which defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth ...." Mt 15:17-19 and Mk 7:21-22 say that evil thoughts like fornication, adultery, theft, murder, extortion, wickedness, deceit, lust, evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness defile. The exact meaning of some of these, especially "evil eye" and "pride" is not clear, but what is clear is that all of these are first thoughts before becoming actions. They come from within. The fact that there are sociological and psychological reasons for thoughts does not change the fact that they are first internal thoughts before becoming actions. The same is true for good thoughts. This is called the law of mind action, but not by Jesus.

Lk 11:39-40 says, "... you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and the dish; but within you are full of extortion and iniquity". Phony smiles do not stand the tests of time or truth, neither with Pharisees nor politicians. Some day, maybe we’ll wake up and realize that Jesus was right.

Related to these phony smiles and cleansed cups is the issue of hypocrisy, a fairly major topic with several sub-topics. Not being a systematic theologian or philosopher, Jesus was more concerned about everyday living. He saw hypocrisy in the Pharisees and others, and he reacted against it.

In the parable or story of the Pharisee and the publican (or tax collector), the publican confessed his sins before God, but the Pharisee thanked God that he was not like the adulterers and tax collectors. Jesus said in Lk 18:14 that "this man (the tax collector or publican) went down to his house more righteous than the Pharisee". Jesus had no sympathy for the vain pride of the Pharisee who thought that he was superior to others.

Mt 16:3 and Lk 12:56-57 (which we will quote) say, "O you hypocrites, you know how to discern the face of the earth and of the sky; how then is it that you do not discern this time? Why do you not of yourselves judge what is right?" We now know that they didn’t really do a very good job of discerning the earth and sky either, because they thought it was flat, and the sky revolved around the flat earth. That is not, however, what Jesus came to say. He was talking about spiritual awareness of right and wrong, not science. The hypocrites saw only what they wanted to see rather than the truth.

Mt 7:3-5 and Lk 6:41-42 say, "why do you see the splinter in your brother’s eye, and do not see the beam in your own eye? O hypocrites, first take out the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to get out the splinter from your brother’s eye." This is not a totally literal statement, because an actual splinter in someone’s eye would be serious, not minor. Jesus is speaking figuratively (other translations use the words "moat" and "log" which obviously could not fit inside of an eye) to the effect that the eye represents spiritual vision. The splinter represents a minor impairment of this vision whereas the beam represents a major impairment. We might say today that the blind should not attempt to lead the nearsighted. The hypocrites were highly critical of the slightest imperfections in others while blind to their own self righteousness and faults.

Both references to deception are in Mark, and both deal with false christs and prophets in the end time. Mk 13:6 says that "many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he’, and they will deceive many". Mk 13:21-22 says, "do not believe false christs and prophets showing signs and wonders to mislead".

I have included these references in the section on hypocrisy (a loose fit) rather than putting them in a separate section. The dilemma for moderns is how to distinguish false prophets from real ones. The best answer that I can come up with is another saying of Jesus, namely to judge by the fruits of the spirit. When television is the medium for the prophet, this is difficult because most viewers never gain personal knowledge of the so called prophet. Certain cases like David Koresh are rather easy to determine, but what about evangelists like John Osteen? Despite his fundamentalist doctrines and fire/brimstone approach, he seems real, but who really knows? It seems that many are mixtures of the human hypocrisy and ego with the spirit of God, in fact, perhaps we all are, which leads to a more metaphysical approach. Taken at face value though, Jesus warned of false prophets who would deceive. He did not specifically address the gray area of one person possessing both the false prophet role and the true prophet role, which often seems to be the case. Judging others’ motives is difficult and is not really our spiritual task, so we will leave it at that. It seems that sooner or later for those who listen and watch, the truth will make itself known, at least in relative terms. Granted, that is easier said than done, but patience and openness helps.

Mk 8:15, Mt 16:6, and Lk 12:1 all say to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees". Mark adds, "and Herod". Matthew adds, "and Sadducees". Luke adds, "which is hypocrisy". Mt 16:12 specifically states, "beware of the TEACHINGS of the Pharisees and Sadducees", making it rather clear what the leaven symbolizes, namely the false teachings of hypocrites. It is noteworthy that leaven makes a cake puff up (unleavened bread is very flat and hard). Whether Jesus meant that the Pharisees were "puffed up" (kind of like a "stuffed shirt" in modern terminology) is uncertain. He left little doubt, however, about the Pharisees being hypocrites. Who are the modern day Pharisees? I will not preach a sermon on that for now, but I don’t think most of them are Jews.

This sub-topic also deals with tradition, and Jesus was not very traditional at all. Conservatives will not like this much.

Mk 7:6-13 is a strong condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees by Jesus. He speaks of honoring with the lips while the heart is far from God (and Jesus), ignoring the commandments of God and observing the tradition of men, and dishonoring the word of God for the sake of their tradition. Mt 15:3-9 is very similar, adding, "why do you also disregard the commandment of God on account of your tradition ... you have rendered useless the word of God for the sake of your tradition". I will refrain from preaching a sermon about how some Christians do the same thing today, but they do, don’t they?

Mt 7:15 again speaks of false prophets, but this time from a slightly different context: "Be careful of false prophets ... lamb’s clothing ... inside are ravenous wolves". So now we know where the expression, "wolf in sheep’s clothing" came from. Watch what they DO, not just what they say.

Mt 12:34 is a bit disturbing for the more liberal Christian: "O generation of scorpions, how can you speak good things when you are bad? ... the mouth speaks from the fullness of the heart". Is this to be taken literally, that there are good people and bad people? Well, were they really scorpions, or is that a figure of speech? Might it not also be possible that this entire question by Jesus was figurative in the sense of comparison and contrast, perhaps even with some exaggeration? I would not conclude that Mt 12:34 proves that there are some people who are just "bad". Hear what you want to hear?

Mt 21:31 is the conclusion of a parable about one who said that he wouldn’t do something for his master but then repented and did it, versus another who said that he would do something for his master, but didn’t follow through. Jesus asks, "which of these two did the will of his father?" The answer is obvious. Actions speak louder than words.

Mt 23:3 says, "but do not do according to their works; for they (Pharisees) say and do not ...." He goes on to list examples of how the Pharisees like to be glorified by men in verses 4 through 7. Again, saying is contrasted with doing.

Lk 6:46 asks, "why do you call me, ‘my Lord, my Lord’, and do not do what I say?" Again, a question contrasting words with deeds. Again, the overall context is the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

We could have included the above sayings in the good works section, which would have added 5 more beans for bean counters who like James ("faith without works is dead") better than Paul (justification by grace through faith alone), but it doesn’t matter that much because the former already has more beans anyway.

The 5 references cited are rather lengthy and could be counted as more. We will summarize how Jesus railed against the phony and pretentious hypocrites who were the official religious leaders of their day. This stuff makes Martin Luther seem tame by comparison.

Mk 7:6-13 and Lk 20:46-47 (which we will quote) have harsh words for the scribes: "Beware of the scribes who like to walk in long robes, and love to be greeted in the streets, and take the chief seats in the synagogues and the high places at banquets ... who embezzle the property of widows with the pretense that they make long prayers; they will receive a greater judgment".

Mt 6:16-18 speaks of hypocrites who fast in order to impress people rather than for some legitimate reason. The most passionate discourses by Jesus on this topic are Mt 23:13-29 and Lk 11:42-54.

Matthew has 16 verses on this and says, "woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" at least 6 times. He gives several examples of how phony they are, such as embezzling widows’ property, legalistic shallow beliefs, etc. In verse 23, he says that "you have overlooked the more important matters of the law, such as justice, mercy, and trustworthiness". He describes them as blind guides who strain at gnats and swallow camels (obviously figurative). "They clean the outside ... but inside they are full of extortion and iniquity ... look beautiful from the outside but inside are full of dead bones and ... corruption".

Luke is even more passionate: "... woe to you Pharisees who take tithes of mint ... but overlook justice and the love of God ... woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ... you lay heavy burdens on men, and you yourselves do not touch these burdens ... you build the tombs of prophets whom your fathers killed ... you are witnesses, and you approve the works of your fathers; for they killed them ... the blood of all the prophets which was shed since the creation of the world may be avenged on this generation ... woe to you, scribes! ... you have taken away the keys of knowledge; you did not enter, and those who were entering you hindered ...."

One could build a case from Luke’s narrative above that the descendants of segregationists and slave owners are responsible for retribution, but we’ll leave that for another day. Jesus was highly ticked off at these hypocrites, these phony religio-actors. Note that the scribes were the people who wrote copies of the scriptures! What does that fact say about the "infallible Bible"?

Rather than rant on about the modern day scribes and Pharisees, I will close this section by stressing that condemnation of hypocrisy was a major theme of Jesus; not as major as faith or the kingdom of God, but no small incidental topic. "Nice" Christians like to distinguish between condemning the actions of people and condemning the people themselves. No such distinction is made by Jesus. If we take the language verbatim, he is condemning the scribes and Pharisees themselves, not just their actions. It was a more primitive time and maybe the language was modified by the authors, but those who can only conceive of Jesus with a halo had best wake up to reality.

Jesus was not a goody-goody or an upper middle class psychologist who speaks of accepting the person but not the actions of the person. All this fancy talk is fine for books, but real life often does not work that way. In real life, we often hate the person too, until we forgive that person. I’m not sure what Jesus was thinking or feeling inside re. this business of the person versus the action, but I can tell you that he was ticked off. How can you read these passages and conclude otherwise?

This brief topic is related to the above, but since hypocrisy is not the specific issue addressed, I made it a separate topic.

Mk 8:12 says that "no sign will be given to this generation", which probably refers to the Pharisees who had asked Jesus for a sign from heaven to test him. They had not asked here for a sign of the last days or the kingdom specifically.

The same conversation also appears twice in Matthew. Mt 12:39 and 16:4 both say that "an evil and adulterous generation wants a sign; and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah". As in Mark, they had requested only a general sign, not a sign of the end time, so there is really no contradiction here with Mk 13 and other passages where Jesus tells the disciples about signs of the end time. First, it was the Pharisees, not the disciples, here who requested the sign. Second, they were not requesting a sign of the end time (necessarily).

This conversation also appears in Luke. Lk 11:29-30 says, "... no sign will be given to it (this generation) except the sign of ... as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation". I must confess only a superficial knowledge of the book of Jonah, thus I will not attempt to interpret the passage about it very much. The men of Ninevah did repent after Jonah gave them the sign. Jesus seems to be saying here that he is the current day Jonah, and that people should repent, like the Ninevites, and believe him. Other than that fairly obvious meaning, I have no further interpretation to make about the sign of Jonah.

Mk 10:8-9 and Mt 19:4-6 (quoted) say, "... and the two shall be one flesh ... henceforth they are not two, but one body; therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate". The traditional interpretation of these passages consists of a moral ban on divorce. What do the passages really say? What is the one flesh, one body? I will be more literal here than the literalists. The one body is the baby, which is a literal fact. What this says is not to divorce when you have had a child, specifically, do not cause a child to have a broken home (what God has joined together, the baby, let not man separate). These passages do not comment one way or the other about divorce when no child is involved. It is uncertain if this is even a prohibition against divorce when the children are grown.

Mk 10:11-12 says that whoever divorces his wife AND MARRIES ANOTHER commits adultery (and likewise for the woman who divorces husband for same reason). The comparable passage in Mt 19:9-12 says this: "Whoever leaves his wife without a charge of adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a woman thus separated commits adultery". What does this mean? Clearly, if you divorce your wife to marry another woman, that is adultery. Jesus was quite specific about that. What does the other part mean? What about "he who marries a woman thus separated"?

Another passage in Matthew, Mt 5:32 sheds some light: "Whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is separated but not divorced commits adultery". First, the causing her to commit adultery probably refers back to the two becoming one in the context of childbirth, although this is not certain. Now, Jesus states here (according to Lamsa’s interpretation of the Aramaic text) that you cannot marry a woman who is SEPARATED BUT NOT DIVORCED. This is the same as most governmental laws. It does not say that you can’t marry someone who is divorced. It is probable that the "thus separated" in Mt 9:9-12 above refers to the woman charged with adultery or the woman (theoretically) who left husband to marry another man (which was rare in those days). It would seem then that you are not supposed to marry a person who is still legally married, one who left the spouse for another, one who cheated on a former spouse, or possibly one who divorced while children were not grown (Jesus does not really say that last one, he says you shouldn’t divorce when children are involved, but he doesn’t say not to marry one who has ever done this). Jesus does not give an absolute prohibition against divorce.

Lk 16:18 says that "he who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries THE ONE WHO IS ILLEGALLY SEPARATED commits adultery". This seems to mean that one should not marry someone who divorced a spouse for another. This is good advice, since that person is likely to leave YOU for another also. What about the one who is left in this situation? It is less clear whether Jesus was referring to a woman who was divorced for another woman here. This could be the case, but remember that the words were recorded some time after Jesus said them and that women were not respected as fully human in those days.

The last part of Mt 9:9-12 (after the disciples ask if it’s worthwhile to marry) says, "this saying (previous verse) does not apply to every man, but to whom it is given ... eunuchs ... to him who can comprehend, this is enough". I’m not sure what this means, but it shows some flexibility and understanding on Jesus’ part.

I do not see Jesus forbidding one to marry another on the sole grounds that the other person has been divorced (when the fault was with the former spouse). The examples that Jesus gives make good common sense, such as not marrying one who has previously left a spouse for another. He was more rational on this subject than most conservatives give him credit for.

Mt 5:28 says that "whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart". If this refers to sex fantasies, only women and homosexuals have never committed adultery! What Jesus probably meant here by "looking with lust" was the common practice of kings and other rich men of that era of taking women in marriage whenever they felt like it. For example, Herod married his brother Philip’s wife, which upset John the Baptist. Jesus may have been referring to a man looking at a woman with the thought of actually taking her sexually (perhaps from her husband) rather than just of sex fantasies in general. On the other hand, some of our sex fantasies probably are adultery as well. Jesus’ teachings here are difficult to properly interpret because the social customs of the time were so radically different from those of today. To say that Jesus lived before women’s lib is a gross understatement.

Although Jesus often retreated to the mountains and such for rest from the large crowds that he attracted, there is only one instance where he comments about it. Mk 6:31 says, "let us go into the wilderness all alone and rest awhile". Jesus was human, not a super-God-machine of constant magic miracles with no rest. Not to say that there weren’t miracles, but he was human with needs like food and sleep. Please note however that although Jesus often retreated to the wilderness, he was not a monk or recluse. He did not STAY in the wilderness. He came back and fed the people. He faced the Pharisees and their phony religion. He died for what he believed in. He was not a totally inward mystic who stayed away. He needed rest but he didn’t spend his life resting.

Jesus had several things to say about prayer. None of them are in Mark, but Mark is the shortest gospel, so it is not that surprising. The other 3 gospels each have several comments.

Mt 6:6 says, "pray to your Father who is in secret" (not openly like the hypocrites). The next verse says, "do not repeat your words like the pagans" (in prayer). What does this say about all the chants, responsive readings, and church prayers of today? Not good news for the liturgist.

Mt 6:9 and Lk 11:2 say to "pray in this manner" (followed by the Lord’s Prayer). Luke leaves out the very end after "deliver us from evil". Now, we pray like that all the time, but it’s out loud and repetitious like he told us not to pray. Praying the Lord’s Prayer silently seems more what Jesus intended.

Jesus spoke of the power of prayer. Mt 17:21 says that "... this kind (epilepsy demon) does not come out except by fasting and prayer". Mt 21:22 says that "everything that you will ask in prayer believing, you shall receive". The key word is "believing". Prayers prayed not believing will not necessarily be answered, at least not in the affirmative. What "believing" precisely means in this context is not that clear. All kinds of different ideas abound.

Lk 18:1 says to "... pray always and not get weary". A parable follows this, which could be interpreted to mean that you should keep bugging God until you get what you want. The parable probably means only what Lk 18:1 says above. It seems to be for the purpose of illustrating that point, namely to pray always and don’t get weary.

Lk 19:46 says, "my house is the house of prayer ... you have made it a cave of bandits". This was when he drove the money changers from the temple. Lk 22:40 says, "... pray that you may not enter into temptation ...." Jn 11:41, the raising of Lazar, says, "... O Father, I thank thee for thou hast heard me ...." Here, Jesus is praying out loud to God rather than talking about prayer. Jn 14:13, Jn 15:16, and Jn 16:23 all say about the same thing, namely that "whatever you ask in my name, I will do (or give) for you". Jn 16:23 says "he" (God) instead of "I". Jn 15:7 says that "if you remain with me ... whatever you ask shall be done for you". This does not specifically say prayer, but the meaning is very similar.

Jesus talks more about faith, good works, and the kingdom than about prayer, but this should not diminish prayer’s importance. When Jesus was here in the flesh, the word of God was available via a human voice. Absent that physical body, prayer remains one important tool to communicate with the spirit that Jesus spoke of so often as the Father and/or the Holy Spirit.

There are no references by Jesus to meditation that are recorded in scripture. Did Jesus meditate? What does meditation mean? The best definition that I have heard is that while prayer is "talking to God", meditation is "listening to God". If that definition is used, Jesus surely meditated, because he did listen to God. Though the term is never specifically mentioned, Jesus probably assumed that "listening to God" (meditation) was a part of prayer. However, new age and new thought Christians should note that meditation is not offered by Jesus as a substitute for either faith or good works. Nowhere does Jesus ever imply that we should go to the mountain to meditate and stay there. He always came back down to feed the people, heal the sick, and give hope to the poor. Those who truly listen to God (meditate) will do likewise.

In Mk 4:39, the stilling of the storm, Jesus says, "peace, be still". Tradition has it that he was speaking to the wind (which was stilled), but what if he was speaking to the disciples (you be still)? It might have been both.

In Mt 28:9, Lk 24:36, and Jn 20:19, the risen Jesus says "peace be with you" to the disciples. Whether this is more than a greeting is not certain. In Mk 5:34 and Lk 8:48, Jesus says to the woman who touched his garment and was healed, "go in peace". Mark adds, "and be healed of your disease". In Lk 7:50, Jesus says to the woman who kissed his feet, "go in peace". Jn 14:27 says, "peace I leave with you; my own peace I give you ...." Was Jesus a pacifist? Let’s look further.

In Mk 9:50, right after the references to Gehenna or hell in Mark, Jesus says, "let there be salt in you, and be at peace with one another". I will not attempt to interpret the salt, but the last part is quite clear.

Mt 5:9 says, "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God". Does this help explain what "Son of God" means?

Mt 5:24 says, "go and make peace with your brother". He follows this up in the next verse with "try to get reconciled with your accuser promptly, for he might surrender you to the judge ... jailer ... prison". Jesus does not advocate violence for the settling of disputes. Rather, he says to get reconciled and make peace.

Mt 26:52 is rather stark, perhaps an exaggeration, also a famous line: "... for all who take swords will die by swords". Was Jesus a pacifist? So far, I’d say yes.

In Lk 9:55-56, after the disciples had asked Jesus if they should command fire to come down on some Samaritans as Elijah did, Jesus rebukes them by saying, "you do not know of what spirit you are ... the Son of Man did not come to destroy lives, but to save". In addition to promoting peace, this remark refutes some Old Testament religion, i.e., no you should NOT do what Elijah did, perhaps implying that Elijah was wrong in doing what he did!

In Lk 10:5-6, the sending out of the 70, Jesus says, "... whatever house you enter, first say, ‘peace be to this house’, and if a man of peace is there, let your peace rest upon him; and if not, your peace will return to you".

In Lk 22:51, after Jesus was arrested and someone cut off the high priest’s servant’s ear, Jesus says, "it is enough for the present". Then he healed the man’s ear.

The same account in Jn 18:11 (which has Peter cutting of the man’s ear) has Jesus saying to Peter, "... put the sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup which my Father has given me?"

Was Jesus a pacifist? So far, the evidence points to a resounding yes, but wait, there’s more.

Mt 10:34 says, "I have NOT come to bring peace but a sword". This contrasts against what we have seen thus far rather dramatically. Lamsa’s footnotes say that the sword was an Aramaic idiom for division, i.e., brother against brother, etc., for some will follow and others will not. Still, this says that Jesus did not come to bring peace, which if literal, contradicts other statements in previous sub-sections above. Is it literal? Let’s look further.

Lk 12:49-51 says, "I came to set the earth on fire; and I wish to do it, if it has not already been kindled. I have a baptism to be baptized with; and I am oppressed until it is fulfilled. Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? I say to you, NO, but divisions ...." The next 2 verses speak of how families will be divided, presumably over Jesus. Is this literal? I don’t recall Jesus setting any forest fires to burn up the earth! This is symbolic!

Nonetheless, he still says that he did not come to bring peace. If Jesus were a systematic theologian and/or philosopher, there might be a contradiction here. However, he claimed to be neither. Jesus is using comparison and contrast in his language. I think what he means is that he did come to bring peace to those who need it, but he came to bring the "bad news" of the truth to those oppressors and liars who already had all the peace they needed at other people’s expense. He never said that, but I think that’s what he meant. We shouldn’t take him so literally that we read him as a philosopher. He was a prophet. His words must be read in the context of the situation. Jesus did come to bring peace, but sometimes certain people need a swift kick in the butt. He knew how to verbally deliver those as well, and sometimes he did. This was one of those times.

Lk 22:36-38 shows the human side of Jesus: "... he who has no sword, let him sell his robe and buy for himself a sword ... that is enough". The disciples had just produced 2 swords before he said, "that is enough". Did he mean that 2 swords were enough swords or did he mean that this was enough talk about swords? We would probably like to say the latter, but we should not carry over one story to another. He said, "it is enough" or something similar after the high priest’s servant’s ear was cut off during his arrest. That is not the context in Lk 22:36-38, however. He has not yet been arrested (that is about 10 verses later). It looks like Jesus was telling the disciples here to bring swords with them. Hey, at least one of them did! How else would you have Peter (or whoever it was) cutting off this guy’s ear just after that?

What does this mean? Jesus preached peace but had his disciples bear swords? Was he not perfect? Was he not God? Did he ever claim to be either, really? Jesus was human. It looks like he had them bring swords in case the authorities decided to kill them all, and then decided not to use them after the incident with the guy’s ear. If that isn’t holy enough for you, drink some truth serum with that grape juice. That seems to be what happened. He decided to be crucified, probably to save his disciples from a similar fate, hence the probable origin of the magic ransom blood atonement doctrine when Paul interpreted this event as universal theology. Jesus, however, was not a theologian like Paul. He died to save his friends.

Was Jesus a pacifist? Are you? I’d say that he was basically a pacifist, but he was also a real human being who lived in a complex world. He had no systemmatic theology. He just seemed to do the right thing in the right situation. Why do some people think that’s not good enough? These digressions by Jesus from the peace theme do not undo the rest of what he said. They merely illustrate the other side of the coin. Maybe it depends on whose peace we’re talking about and for what reason. In my opinion, he was basically a pacifist, but not a pure pacifist. As usual, I could be wrong.

Lk 19:42 says, "if you (Jerusalem) had only known those who came for your peace, even in this your day ...." Jesus is speaking here of the prophets who tried to warn the leaders in Jerusalem about things to come, but they did not listen. Likewise, they did not listen to Jesus, and Jerusalem was sacked and destroyed in 70 A.D.

Humility and miscellaneous blessings

Mk 9:35 says, "he who wishes to be first, let him be last ... servant of every man". Likewise, Mk 10:31 says that the "last shall be first". It is generally agreed that this refers to the kingdom of God or heaven.

Mk 10:43-44 and Mt 20:26-28 (fuller passage quoted here) say that "whoever wishes to be great among you, let him be a minister to you; and whoever wishes to be first among you, let him be a servant to you; just as the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister and give his life ...." Lk 22:26-27 says the same thing with different wording: "... let him who is great among you be the least, and he who is a leader be like one who serves ... I am among you as one who serves".

Mt 18:4 says that "whoever ... humbles himself like this little child shall be great in the kingdom of heaven". Mt 23:11-12 says, "he who is greatest among you, let him be your servant ... whoever exalts himself will be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted". Likewise, Lk 14:8-11 says, "when you are invited ... to a banquet house, do not go and sit in the front seat ... go and sit at the lower end ... he will say to you ... ‘go up and sit higher’ ... whoever exalts himself will be humbled; and whoever humbles himself will be exalted". Regardless of whether the reference is to heaven and/or inner peace here and now, Jesus made it quite clear how we are expected to behave. There is nothing subtle or complex about being humble. In the business vernacular, be content to be one of the workers; don’t kiss the boss’s rear end or act like a know-it-all. There’s nothing theological about this. It’s pure ethics. Jesus preached a lot of ethics. Again in the business vernacular, if you brown-nose, BS, and play con games long enough, you will eventually get fired (he who exalts himself will be humbled). The same words are stated again almost verbatim at the end of the Pharisee/publican parable in Lk 18:14. It is no coincidence that Jesus said this so many times.

Jn 13:14 gives a specific example: "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, how much more should you wash one another’s feet?" One need not get metaphysical to interpret this. Washing someone else’s feet sounds odd in our culture, but this was a Jewish custom of the time, literally, washing someone’s feet. Egotistical know-it-all’s need not apply for discipleship.

Jesus stressed humility a lot more than many "optimistic" Christians care to admit. Sometimes, even a bit of groveling in the dust may be in order, maybe even a little guilt feeling and shame. Whatever it takes, we were put here to serve, not to boast, and not even to feel good. If we feel good in the process, so much the better, but Jesus didn’t say to feel good, he said to serve. Remember, a servant back then was basically a slave. That language makes us squirm today, but that doesn’t change what Jesus said.

Mt 5:3 says, "blessed are the humble". Lamsa footnotes this as "poor in pride, unassuming". Mt 5:5 says, "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth". Both of these are at the beginning of the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount. They reinforce what was said above.

I placed this here for lack of a better alternative. Be humble, don’t draw attention to yourself by accentuating your statements with oaths. Mt 5:33-37 says not to swear (oaths, especially exaggerated oaths by the earth, Jerusalem, heaven, etc.) ... "let your words be yes and no; for anything which adds to these is deception". Let us not take this too literally. He was referring to excessive language which meant nothing more than yes or no - he did not mean that all words other than yes and no were lies - see how ludicrous pure literalism can be?

Again, for lack of a better place to put these, here we go. Mt 5:7 says "blessed are the merciful". Mt 5:8 says, "blessed are the pure in heart". Again, these are from the Beatitudes. Lk 6:21 says, "blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be filled ... blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh". Not only was Jesus an advocate of humility, but also of JUSTICE. When religion ABOUT Jesus forgets the religion OF Jesus, it becomes hypocrisy. Jesus was for the powerless.

My notes say that there is only one reference BY JESUS to perfection. It is not a topic discussed frequently by Jesus, nor does he claim it for himself. He claims a lot of things: Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, etc., but not perfection. Was he just too humble to make the claim? Perhaps, but he still didn’t claim it.

Mt 5:48, perhaps the keynote statement of the Sermon on the Mount, says, "therefore become perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect". This is in the same section where Jesus talks about loving enemies, not a dot of the law passing away, and some hell threats. Some of the most wonderful and scary statements by Jesus are contained together here, but it all seems to revolve around the central theme of being perfect. Parts of the Sermon on the Mount are also included in Luke, but not with this perfection emphasis. It is a phenomenon unique to Matthew.

Did Jesus really expect people to be perfect? It sounds like it from Mt 5. But what about the rest of his teachings? Jesus stressed forgiveness and he associated with sinners. Was his message "be perfect or else"? One could get that impression from Matthew if one is reading it with fear, but Jesus knew fully well that people were not perfect, and he forgave them. He knew that Peter would deny him. Did Peter go to hell? In my view, perfection for Jesus was a goal: "Be ye therefore perfect" or "therefore become perfect". Metaphysical religion sees this as a becoming process, in fact it teaches that Jesus became one with the Father rather than necessarily being one with the Father from the beginning. Whether or not this view is correct is open to question.

If Jesus really meant to be perfect or go to hell, then heaven must be a terribly lonely place. Jesus was a lot more perfect than anyone that I have ever met, but I’m not even sure that he was perfect in the sense of never making a mistake or even thinking something wrong, especially when he said that no one is good but the Father. If he didn’t even claim to be good, why would he claim to be perfect? There could be some translation error in meaning involved here, but the Orthodox notion that Jesus was perfect is highly questionable. Yet he did say to be perfect. The only way it makes sense is as a goal. If the coach says, "let’s win this game" and the team loses, is the coach a liar? If perfection is a goal rather than an actuality, then maybe heaven (whatever it is) is not empty after all.

Aha, another biggie! I bet this will take 10 pages. Surprisingly, no. Love as a topic of discussion by Jesus was not a major theme numbers wise. He lived it a lot more than he talked about it. When he did talk about it, some very major points were made. Though relatively few in number, Jesus’ comments about love are very important to his message. He makes some rather sweeping statements.

John’s gospel, which stresses love, has at least 2 instances where love is a commandment of Jesus to the disciples. The significance of a commandment is that the Jewish religion’s tradition places great value on the commandments of Moses. For Jesus to give a new commandment was of supreme importance.

Jn 13:34 says, "a new commandment I give you, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another". Jn 15:2 says, "this is my commandment: that you love one another just as I have loved you". Considering the fact that Jesus died for the disciples, this was an extraordinary teaching, to be willing to die for one another. Words cannot really express the greatest love of all. This is not magic ransom theology, just probable history: If Jesus had not surrendered peacefully when arrested, all the disciples would likely have been killed along with Jesus. He literally died for them.

In John, the commandments were summarized by love. Love also included obeying the commandments. Jn 14:15 says, "if you love me, keep my commandments". These words are also found in Jn 14:21 and 14:23-24. He also says here, "he who loves me keeps my word".

Jn 15:10 says, "if you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love". Jn 15:17 says, "I command these things to you so that you may love one another". Love was not an abstract concept for Jesus. He tied it to actions - "keep my commandments".

The synoptics are a little more specific about actions that help define love. Matthew and Luke both mention turning the other cheek. In practical everyday Christianity, as opposed to theoretical Sunday morning Christianity, this teaching is compromised by conservatives and liberals alike. There is always a situation where turning the other cheek will not work, and therefore some situations call for military action against the communists, etc. Isn’t it interesting how fundamentalists believe in situation ethics when it benefits them?

Mt 5:39 says to turn the other cheek. This means to tell the mugger to hit you over the head again, right? Whoa! Lamsa’s footnote says that turning the other cheek is Aramaic idiom for not starting a quarrel or fight! Wow! If this is the case, this teaching is not so tough after all, is it? Most of us don’t look for fights. This is totally different from not defending yourself!

Lk 6:28-29 though says, "and to him who strikes you on the cheek, offer to him the other ...." This sounds more like the lack of self defense business again. There is no footnote by Lamsa for this passage in Luke. Which meaning of turning the other cheek is correct? Your guess is as good as mine! Could it depend on the situation?

In the time of Jesus, there was a custom imposed by Rome of forcing people to carry the burden of a Roman soldier for a mile. In Mt 5:41, Jesus says to carry the burden a second mile, presumably as a free gift. This custom was hated by the people. Jesus’ remark illustrates an example of loving one’s enemies, as Roman soldiers were considered enemies by the Jews. Just before this in Mt 5:40, Jesus had said that if you are sued for a shirt, to give the robe also. This illustrates the same principle of doing more than required, even for an enemy.

Lk 6:30 says to "... give to everyone who asks you; and from him who takes away what is yours, do not demand it back again". This is easier said than done in real life. The ability of a person to actually behave in this manner is the likely result of the faith that Jesus taught. There may well be a missing link between faith and works involved here, but it is not clearly stated as such by Jesus, although it seems to be implied, namely that faith in God provides the inner strength that enables a person to love the enemy. Note, however, that this is mainly conjecture on my part, not a specific teaching of Jesus.

The longest discourse on loving your enemies is in Mt 5:43-47: "You have heard ... ‘be kind to your friends, and hate your enemy’, but I say ... love your enemies, bless anyone who curses you, do good to anyone who hates you, and pray for those who persecute you ... if you love only your friends ..." (it goes on) you will (paraphrasing) have no reward (presumably in heaven). This might rightly be called a tough teaching of Jesus. Taken at face value, it seems that heaven may be a very lonely place, for few have done well at loving their enemies. Tolerating is one thing, but loving is another. As was the case with perfection, these statements were hopefully more about the ideal than the reality, for few if any truly love their enemies. To the degree that we do, perhaps the reward comes.

Lk 6:27-30 says to "love your enemies and do good to those who hate you and bless those who curse you and pray for those who compel you to carry burdens". Lk 6:32-36 asks, "for if you love those who love you, what is your blessing? ... if you do good only to those who do good to you, what is your blessing? ... love your enemies and do good to them ... do not cut off any man’s hope ... for he (God) is gracious to the wicked and the cruel ... be therefore merciful as your Father also is merciful". Again, easier said than done, but Jesus did it, and it probably got him killed. These teachings demonstrate the highest ideals of human behavior. The bad news is the realization that so few people ever live up to it, and even those who sometimes do often backslide. The balance that is needed between forgiveness/repentance and good works is evident here. There are a few saints who seem able to practice this teaching at least part of the time, but most of us fall far short even when we try, and many never try at all. Jesus was not speaking here about what you believe, but rather about what you do. That’s the hard part.

Compared to the last 2 sub-topics, this one is a crip course in the game of life. The "golden rule" of Lk 6:31: "Just as you want men to do to you, do to them likewise". I think that I usually follow that teaching myself, but that’s a long way from "love your enemies" because I don’t go around trying to make enemies anyway, so I don’t really know how my enemies would want me to treat them. This teaching is sandwiched in between the tough stuff mentioned above. Maybe we have some translation error here? Maybe the golden rule is a little tougher than it seems and loving your enemy is not quite as drastic as it seems? I don’t know, but it seems my golden rule grade would be much higher than my loving enemies grade, as likely would yours.

Mt 5:42 (loose topical fit) says to "give to him who asks, do not refuse a borrower". Middle class people who don’t like hobos had better read this one again! Suburbanites who squirm around lowlife city beggars and panhandlers had better take note! It’s not simple anymore, and giving money to a drug addict is just feeding his habit, although it might also be saving someone else a mugging or burglary, but Jesus would likely have little patience with most modern day excuses to ignore the poor. Next time you ignore the panhandler, think of what might happen to you if you lost your job and health insurance. Jesus didn’t come to make the rich comfortable. As he said, they already have their reward.

The account of the Lord’s Supper refers to bread as Jesus’ body and wine as Jesus’ blood in symbolic terms. This was the last meal that Jesus would have with the disciples, and he knew it. Even the body and blood themselves were actually symbolic of the spirit of Jesus living on to be shared by the disciples later, or at least that’s the way I read it. Pure literalists get very quiet and/or change the subject when the truly literal interpretation is given, which would have the disciples being cannibals and/or vampires. There is no way that these accounts are to be taken literally, except that Jesus really did have this meal with the bread and wine with the disciples, and that he really did say what is in scripture. The meaning of what he said, however, is obviously symbolic.

Mk 14:22 and Mt 26:26 both say to "take (the bread); this is my body". Lk 22:19 says, "this is my body, which is given for your sake; do this in remembrance of me ...." He knew that he would be dying. It was a symbolic act of remembrance.

Jn 6:51 says, "the bread which I will give is my body ... (for) ... eternal life". The bread symbolizes the body, which in turn, probably symbolizes the spirit.

Jn 6:54-58 uses both body and blood symbolically: "He who eats of my body and drinks of my blood has eternal life; and I will raise him at the last day ... he who eats of this bread shall live forever". Eating is obviously symbolic here of receiving Jesus’ spirit.

Mk 14:24 says, "this (wine) is my blood of the NEW COVENANT which is shed for the sake of MANY". Mt 26:27-28 says, "take, drink of it ... this is my blood of the NEW TESTAMENT which is shed for the remission of sins". Lk 22:20 says, "... this is the cup of the NEW COVENANT in my blood which is shed FOR YOU". The new covenant or testament is the central theme here. I am assuming that "new testament" here does not refer the Bible, because there was only the Old Testament during Jesus’ physical lifetime. Jesus has improved the Old Testament Law and also demonstrated the power of love and forgiveness, not to mention radical notions like loving your enemies, which supersedes the old way of thinking. This new covenant of love is what the blood stands for.

Some claim that these verses support Orthodox Pauline blood-of-the-lamb magic ransom theology. Somehow, because Jesus died, a cosmic event happened which saved everyone (except those who reject it and what about those already dead?), so Jesus saved the world by this one act.

This is not what the gospels say. Mark and Matthew say that he died for MANY, not all the world. Luke says for YOU (the disciples). Note that Matthew adds, "for the remission of sins", a Jewish notion left over from the days of sacrifices, and adopted by Orthodox Christianity later. Note that Mark and Luke do NOT say this. In my opinion, Orthodox religion has added on to what Jesus meant in his beautiful symbolic statements at the Last Supper. There is no magic ransom in his words unless the reader wants to add them. "Many" does not mean "the whole world". Rather, it means the many disciples and others that the chief priests would have probably had killed if Jesus had put up a fight. Theologians often add theology that isn’t there to history that is there. This seems to be one of those times.

At the end of each synoptic gospel is a statement by Jesus to preach the gospel to the world. Mk 16:15 (the add-on) says to "go into all the world and preach my gospel to the whole creation". Mt 28:19-20 says to "... convert all nations; and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and teach them to obey everything that I have commanded you ...." As this is the only reference by Jesus to the Trinity, one wonders if the text is also a later addition to his words. Lk 24:49 says, "... I will send upon you the promise of my Father; but remain in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high". This is rather different from Mark and Matthew.

There are also other earlier references. In the story of the Gerasene demoniac, Jesus says to the man, "return to your own house, and declare what God has done for you". In the sending out of the 70, Lk 10:16 says, "he who hears you hears me; and he who oppresses you oppresses me ...." Mt 10:32-33 says, "everyone who will acknowledge me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven, but whoever will deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father in heaven". Don’t take that too literally unless you think that Peter went to hell! I dare say that Jesus is speaking in generalities here.

John also has a reference here. Jn 17:20 says, "I am not making request for these (disciples) alone, but also for the sake of those who believe in me through their word". Spreading the good news of the gospel was part of what Jesus was all about, although he did not talk about it that much.

Mt 16:18 (Jesus to Peter) says, "you are the stone, and upon this stone I will build my church ...." Since there was no church at that time (Jesus attended the temple and the synagogue, not the church), one wonders if the term, "church", here is an accurate translation. However, it could have been that Jesus knew there would be a movement after his death (in fact, I’d say he did know that) and "church" was the term he chose to call it.

Mt 18:20, in the spirit of that early church, says, "wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them". This is not a reference specifically to the church, but it is an apt description of the true early church, which was not a building.

There is no argument against the fact that the gospels testify to many supernatural events by Jesus, what moderns might refer to as magic, i.e., contradictory to known science and natural law. At least in their literal interpretation, this fact cannot seriously be disputed. One cannot explain them all away as miracles of chance. Whether they really happened that way is another question, but scripture, interpreted at face value, says that they did. However, Jesus spoke of such things only a few times.

In Mt 17:27, Jesus says to "... throw out a hook, and the first fish which comes up, open its mouth and you will find a coin ...." (and then it happened as he said). This is probably meant to be more than a miracle of chance.

In Mt 26:53, after Jesus’ capture, he asks, "or do you think that I cannot ask of my Father, and he will now raise up for me more than twelve legions of angels?" This is a bit more than the answer to a typical prayer.

Jn 11:43-44, the raising of Lazar, says, "... Lazar, come out ... loose him and let him go". Lazar had been dead four days. This was not merely a good day for nature and the immune system. According to John, Jesus not only knew beforehand (supernaturally) that Lazar was dead, but brought him back to physical life via these words above.

These sayings could have been added on later to Jesus’ actual words (and deeds?) by the authors, or the meanings could be symbolic rather than literal, but at face value, Jesus is speaking here of totally supernatural magic, not the power of positive thinking or natural phenomena. Not being an expert on symbolic interpretation, I will leave conclusions to the reader.

These episodes are toward the end of Jesus’ ministry in or near Jerusalem. In the story of the fig tree, Jesus says in Mk 11:14, "from now on and forever let no man eat of your fruit". Mt 21:19 says likewise. He seemed to be angry at the fig tree here. It is also recorded that he was not aware (or forgot) that it was not the season for figs, which shows that he was not intellectually perfect, if he was perfect at all (which he did not claim in the gospels). He probably was not aware that the earth was round either, but this is not what his life was about.

He showed anger in overturning the tables of the money changers in the temple. Mk 11:17 says, "my house shall be called ... but you have made it a bandits’ cave". Mt 21:13 says likewise. Lk 19:46 says similarly, "my house is the house of prayer; but you have made it a cave of bandits". Jn 2:16 says, "... do not make my Father’s house a house of trading". The words themselves do not necessarily convey anger, but calm people do not normally turn tables and chairs over or chase people away, which are stated in the context by the authors. Jesus was human. By the way, he did not say that all anger is bad.

The Old Testament is full of references about an angry God. The gospels have only one probable reference that I could find, part of a parable. Mt 18:34 says, "so his master (probably representing God) was angry, and ... until he should pay everything he owed him". This likely means that God was angry about someone who did not pay back what he owed. The parable may be more symbolic than that, and might not actually mean that God was angry. The gospels do not paint the picture of an angry God like in the Old Testament unless we want to count the hell and punishment themes as indicators of God’s anger, which may or may not be a valid connection.

Jesus does not actually say that all anger is wrong. Lamsa’s translation of Mt 5:22 says that "whoever becomes angry with his brother FOR NO REASON is guilty before the court ...." This is also the passage previously discussed about going to hell for calling someone a fool or a queer. Lamsa’s "for no reason" makes the meaning quite different than the RSV which leaves that out. Jesus did not say that all anger was wrong, so if he was angry sometimes, he was not contradicting himself.

Jesus had very little to say about these topics, far less than many preachers today. There are a few items though.

In the story of the healing or raising of Jairus’ daughter, Jesus says in Mk 5:39 and Lk 8:52 that "the little girl is not dead, but she is asleep". If the story is taken literally, she had apparently been resurrected earlier and was now only sleeping physically. Metaphysical interpretations also abound, but I will leave that expertise to others. The reference to death here is almost in passing. Jesus came to speak of life, not death.

In Jn 21:18, the risen Jesus says to the disciples, "... when you were young, you ... walked wherever you pleased; but when you become old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will tie up for you your girdle and take you where you do not wish to go". This is the only reference to the aging process by Jesus in the gospels. Verse 19 says that Jesus said the above to show by what death he would glorify God, which does not make sense, because this is the risen Jesus speaking, who had already been crucified and had risen! Is this a reference to a second death? The ascension? The end time? I will leave that to the theologians who wish to speculate.

Some doubt that John 21 is authentic anyway. There is some evidence that it could be an add-on to the original book - John 20 seems like an ending. I don’t profess to know.

We are nearing the end of our journey. Comments will be brief on these, most of which I do not pretend to understand.

In reference to the discussion above, there is another verse at the end of John that is both baffling and beautiful at the same time. In Jn 21:21, the risen Jesus says to Peter, "if I wish him (John) to remain until I come, what difference does that make to you?" His next words were "follow me". This ending gives some credence to the belief that John was written by John, the son of Zebedee, disciple of Jesus, or to another John, a Judean, who was also a follower of Jesus. On the other hand, it could be part of an add-on to convince people of that notion when the facts were different. It is not critical who wrote the book. John never claimed to be perfect, so even if he did write it, that doesn’t make it infallible or right about everything. If he didn’t write it, that doesn’t make it a total fraud either. The truth of scripture (when it is true) is rather self evident. Scholars probably spend too much time worrying about who wrote something, when the time would be better spent asking if it’s the truth.

In addition to the fish being the sign of the early Christian church, there are numerous references in the gospels to Jesus and the disciples fishing by the Sea of Galilee. In John 21, Jesus’ remarks refer to this.

Jn 21:5 says, "... have you got anything to eat?" Jn 21:6 says, "... throw your net on the right side of the boat, and you will find fish ...." This might have been a miracle or Jesus might have seen some fish in the water. The symbolism probably refers to a miracle of greater magnitude. Jn 21:12 simply says, "... come, break your fast ...." I will leave symbolic interpretation and theology to the reader. These references to eating fish are of a personal nature between Jesus and the disciples. One must read the gospels in their entirety to appreciate their beauty.

Mk 12:17, Mt 22:21, and Lk 20:25 say to give to Caesar what is his and to God what is his. Many preachers offer interpretations of same, none of which I believe without great reservation. It COULD mean to pay your taxes, Republicans! This was one of those brilliant but confusing answers that Jesus gave to the phony Pharisees who tried to entrap him in his talk. He outsmarted them. In literal terms, "render to Caesar" might not mean much of anything at all.

Mt 5:13 says that "you are the salt of the earth". There are also other references by Jesus to salt. Salt is a preservative. Is that what Jesus meant? Salt also gives flavor. Could that be it? It also melts ice and causes high blood pressure for some people. I don’t know what Jesus meant by salt, so I’ll stop guessing.

Mt 7:6 says, "do not give holy things to the dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine". Some interpret these as early anti-Gentile statements by Jesus. Lamsa has a better explanation. These were Aramaic idioms meaning "do not speak words of wisdom to fools". I suppose that one would be wasting one’s time in so doing, but I’m not too worried about it. If I should utter any wisdom at all, so what if a fool hears it?

Mt 9:37-38 says, "the harvest is great and the laborers are few; therefore urge the owner of the harvest to bring more laborers to his harvest". Jesus said this to the disciples before the sending out of the 12. I guess he was looking for more followers.

Mt 10:16 says to "be wise as serpents and pure as doves". Actually, snakes may not be that wise, but legend has it that they’re sneaky, underhanded, and tempted Eve to eat the apple. I think he meant to be wary but also loving.

On the road to Jerusalem in Samaria, Jesus responded to a would be follower with, "foxes have holes ... but the Son of Man has no place even to lay his head". Frankly, I think that Jesus was tired and a bit frustrated when he said this, and that there is no great meaning other than that he couldn’t find a place to sleep on the road. Not every word has to be a parable. You have a better explanation? Let’s hear it.

Jesus issued a tough teaching right after his description of heaving a mulberry tree into the ocean by faith. Lk 17:9-10 says, "... will that servant receive praise because he did what he was commanded to do? I do not think so ... we are idle servants; we have only done what was our duty to do". Perhaps I should have included this with good works or going the second mile. This seems to be what he means, but I’m not sure.

The Palm Sunday quote from Lk 19:31 is "our Lord needs it". This was referring to the ass that Jesus would ride that day. Is there a metaphysical meaning here? I don’t think so, but I’m not an ass, so how would I know? I told you this was miscellaneous.

Jn 4:36-38 says, "and he who reaps receives wages and gathers fruits to life everlasting, so that the sower and the reaper may rejoice together ... in this case the saying is true, ‘one sows and another reaps’. I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor; for others labored, and you have entered into their labor". I think he was talking about the disciples, through himself, taking up the tradition of the prophets, i.e., the prophets and Jesus would be the sowers, the disciples would be the reapers, but this could be the wrong interpretation.

This is the end of the collected sayings of Jesus represented here. Many other things were said ABOUT Jesus by the authors, but this work contains only what was said (with exceptions noted) BY Jesus. If you want to know what Paul said, read someone else’s book, like maybe Romans.

Not included anywhere that I could find in the words of Jesus were some common Christian beliefs about various topics. Below is by no means an exhaustive list, merely a few things that I noted while going over the sea of information discussed above.

1. Justification or salvation by faith or grace alone without works.

This is the most notable omission when compared to most Christian theology. There are many references to faith, but not versus works as a means of salvation. This doctrine came from Paul, not Jesus. There is no conflict in Jesus’ teachings between faith and works. No cause and effect relationship between faith and works is stated or strongly implied in the gospels.

One could argue that the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke demonstrated that justification was by faith alone: The Pharisee thanked God that he was not like the tax collector who confessed his sins, begged forgiveness, and was thus justified, whereas the Pharisee was not. Perhaps this story is a step in the direction of Pauline theology, but repentance is not the same thing as the faith that Jesus taught in the gospels. There is no clear argument either way based solely on this story. The Pharisee was probably also a hypocrite who did not really do good works either, so it does not say that works do not justify. As we have seen already, Jesus says that we are justified by our works plus repentance/forgiveness. Faith might give you the strength you need, but does not give you justification. By the way, the term, "justification" may be moot anyway if it is true that God loves us anyway, justified or not.

Regarding the faith versus works debate, it should be stated that Jesus did not usually teach works righteousness apart from what is often called grace, that is, salvation is from God, especially the love of God. Unlike Paul, however, Jesus did not tie this idea specifically to faith, that is, faith and forgiveness are not the same thing. There is one exception, Lk 7:50, where Jesus tells a woman whose sins has been forgiven that her faith had saved her. This one instance, however, of tying the two concepts together is a far cry from Paul and Luther’s teachings, especially in light of the rest of Jesus’ teachings on the subjects.

Jesus says that we will be judged by what we do. It is a combination of accepting God’s grace (Jesus would probably say love rather than grace) and doing good works. Sometimes, it seems that the former causes the latter, but Jesus did not specifically say that. Faith may well help us to accept God’s grace, but this is not specifically stated by Jesus either. Since Jesus was not a systematic theologian, it is difficult to get any more precise about his theology on this. Suffice it to say that Jesus did not offer any simplistic ideological avenues to salvation. It was a matter of life rather than theology. Works are an important part of the mix.

2. Smoking.

There are many good reasons not to smoke, but scripture is not one of them. Jesus had nothing to say on the matter at all. Tobacco has been around for a long time. We don’t know whether anyone Jesus knew smoked or not. Lots of arguments can be made based on general precepts, but there is nothing directly stated on this subject in the gospels.

3. Getting married for the wrong reasons.

I wish Jesus had talked about this, because many divorces occur as a result, and he taught against some types of divorce. Unfortunately, he either said nothing about it or those who wrote scripture chose not to write it down. Given the culture of that age, it is not really surprising. Jesus was not a social reformer. His message dealt more with what goes on within.

4. Abortion.

Obviously, this divisive issue was a non-issue in Jesus’ time because there was no such medical practice, legal or illegal, as far as scripture is concened. No direct statements are made.

5. Suicide.

There may be other references in the Bible to this, but Jesus does not speak of it at all in the gospels. One could argue that suicide is a violation of "thou shalt not kill", but since Moses’ God

tells the Jews to go and kill their enemies in war, "thou shalt not kill" is obviously not intended to be universally applied in the Old Testament. Therefore, no conclusions can be reached about suicide.

6. Homosexuality.

Moses and Paul spoke against it, but Jesus had nothing to say about it one way or the other. For those of you thinking that Jesus always supported Mosaic law, please refer back to that section earlier in this document. Such a position is highly questionable at best.

7. The Bible.

Jesus mentioned scripture frequently, but there was no Bible in Jesus’ time, nor does he ever use the term in the gospels. He does refer to various books of law and prophecy now contained in the Old Testament, but never to the Old Testament itself. He never states that it is infallible.

8. Beliefs about Jesus

There are many controversies within Christianity, not to mention outside it, about who Jesus was and what it means. Jesus did say very clearly that he was the Son of God, although Son of Man was the term he used most. We have looked at possible meanings in an earlier section. He also stated clearly that those who inherit the kingdom must believe IN him and follow him. Exactly what this means 2000 years later is subject to interpretation.

What Jesus did NOT say, however, is that one must believe that Jesus is the Son of God to inherit the kingdom. He may have implied it, but he did not say it. He said that he is the Son of God, and he said that one must believe in him, but he did not say that one must believe that he is the Son of God. Authors of the gospels and/or Paul may have said it, but Jesus did not. It would seem that someone like Gandhi, who did not profess this belief, was closer to the kingdom than many who do so, because he believed IN the principles that Jesus taught, though not a Christian.

This is not to say that all world religions are equal or that Jesus was not unique. He was the only one to claim to be the Son of God, and his messages of loving enemies, unlimited faith, and the prime importance of love are not really duplicated in any other religion of which I am aware. Nonetheless, his comment about saying "Lord, Lord" and not following his commandments seems quite to the point. He cared more about what people did than about what they claimed. His teachings illustrated this many times. He did not say that you had to believe this or that to find the kingdom. It was a matter of faith or belief IN something rather than belief about something, even about his own person. Even more so, it was a matter of love, good works, and repentance.

9. Only Son of God

John 3:16 says that Jesus was the ONLY Son of God. However, this is the author speaking, not Jesus. Jesus, while claiming to be the Son of God, did not say "only". In fact, at one point he referred to others as "sons of God", but with a small "s", although one wonders how this distinction was made verbally in Aramaic when Jesus actually said it.

10. Other topics

Obviously, there are lots of other issues that Jesus did not specifically mention. The point here is that if someone tells you that Jesus taught for or against something that is not specifically referenced in the gospels, the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. Jesus’ teachings were highly spiritual in nature, and he often used symbolic language. If Jesus did not specifically discuss that issue, the case that he taught for it or against it is very difficult to make.

I freely confess that my knowledge of biblical Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic is next to nothing. Why not leave studies like this to the New Testament scholars who are more qualified and knowledgeable about the Greek texts?

I have searched numerous scholarly works for clues that might shed light on what Jesus actually said and what it might mean. What I have found is a tendency for the scholars to get bogged down in irrelevant detail such as debating when Mark was written. The fact is that nobody knows. The arguments of scholars for 60 to 90 A.D. are flimsy at best. Besides, what does composition date have to do with the truth of the narrative? If archaeologists find the original Mark tomorrow and date it at 32 A.D., does that mean that every word is therefore authentic? If it is found to be 95 A.D., does that make it false? Scholars often lose the forest for the trees. We need the big picture: What did Jesus say? If a scholar has actually undertaken a work similar to this book, I am most anxious to read it. Any takers?

My knowledge of the scholars reveals other problems. The most obvious question concerns which scholar to believe. The scholars are always arguing with one another about all kinds of things, not just trivial details, but critical theological issues. If I trust this work to the scholars, which scholar do I believe? Therefore, I decided to get the facts from the proverbial horse’s mouth, the gospels, rather than trusting some scholar whose views might more closely resemble some other part of a horse. You mean to tell me that the author does not trust the scholars to be unbiased? You bet! Why then should you believe my version of things? Maybe you shouldn’t. That’s why I confess my limitations freely so that readers can decide conclusions for themselves. That’s also why I attempt to make clear what comes from scripture and what comes from me. The scholars should, but often don’t, do likewise.

My biggest beef about the scholars though is a tendency to define Paulism as the true Christianity and explain Jesus in those terms. What do I mean? Almost all seminary professors will tell you that many of Paul’s letters are authentic and written around 40 to 50 A.D. while the gospels were written between 60 and 90 A.D. The implication, though they won’t come out and say it, is that the gospels are mostly legend (the miracles didn’t really happen) and that their overall contents are questionable. The implied logic is circular: Miracles don’t happen, therefore the gospels were written much later and contain legend, therefore the miracles are legendary and didn’t really happen. That’s the circular part. Here’s the rest of it: Therefore, Paul’s letters are the heart of Christianity, and the gospels are evaluated in light of the teachings of Paul and the early church. I totally reject this logic! While the gospels may or may not be legendary as far as the miracles are concerned, there is no real evidence that most of the TEACHINGS of Jesus in the gospels are legendary, i.e., not really from Jesus. I insist on looking at what Jesus said apart from Paul and the early church. After all, Jesus lived first. Paul and the early church did not influence Jesus. It was the other way around. Paul did not claim to be the Son of God. Jesus did.

How do the scholars know that Paul interpreted Jesus correctly? Jesus does NOT teach justification by grace through faith alone or magic ransom blood atonement, the 2 central cores of Paul’s theology. Just because the gospels were written later (if indeed they were) does NOT mean that Paul’s teachings are more authentic than those attributed to Jesus in the gospels. I don’t care if they find out that all 4 gospels were just made up, and that Jesus never really walked the face of the earth at all! Then, I’d worship whoever came up with the original story as the Son of God because of the teachings!

Paul is the guy who said that women should wear veils over their heads in church while remaining silent. Paul was WRONG!!! Paul was a good man, but he may have been wrong about many things. Why do the Christian scholars so often insist that Paul’s tenets (rather than Jesus’) are the crux of Christianity? Are they trying to say that the authors of the gospels cannot be trusted to tell us what Jesus really said, and that all we really have is Paul? Hogwash! Even if there was legend included, that does not nullify Jesus’ teachings in the gospels. One conclusion of mine from this study is that Paul was the first heretic! Why should I believe him if what he says is not supported by the teachings of Jesus? If you can’t believe Jesus, who can you believe?

This book was not written for the scholars and seminary professors. It was written for regular people who may not know about kerygma, christos, koinonia, alpha, omega, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, or even Dukakis, but who care about spirituality, God, and/or Jesus. It does require that the reader have a brain and a conscience, but not a Ph.D. in theological mumbo jumbo. If some super educated scholar attempts to improve upon and/or revise this work, hopefully this individual will do the world a favor by writing it in plain English.

I will not attempt to summarize what has been examined. It is far too much to capsulize. I have only one definite conclusion: The next time you hear a preacher making a point, ask yourself if Jesus said it!

What Jesus Said in the Bible *** Teachings OF Jesus, not Teachings about Jesus *** Non-denominational Jewish/Christian/Universalist *** Honest Examination of What Jesus Taught by Topic *** What Jesus Said, not what Paul Said About Jesus *** Teachings OF Jesus in the Gospels *** An Honest and Relatively Unbiased Look at Jesus' Teachings *** An Honest Examination of the "Red Ink" part of the Bible *** What Jesus Really Said in the Gospels