God does not lose any who would come have to him

While some of the specifics about our judgment day remain a mystery, there are some things we can be assured of. One of those things is that God will not lose any who would come to Jesus. God’s judgment is not arbitrary but instead is based on wisdom and certainty. And so we can be certain that there is no scenario where God knows given a certain circumstance, a person would have believed, but he condemns them anyway. Paul affirms this when he writes,

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:28–30, ESV)

God knows every scenario we might encounter and how we would respond

The scripture assures us that as we stand before God’s throne, we will be “naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13, ESV). This should bring us comfort, knowing that if there is a circumstance where we would believe, he knows it. The scripture is clear God prefers mercy to judgment and seeks to provide a way for us to come to him. He who knows all things is able to sustain anyone who would come to him given another circumstance other than the one they lived. Because of God’s love, we need not fear missing his grace due to a fleeting moment or dying right before we would have believed or even the circumstances of our life. We can have confidence that no one who would have come to God under different circumstances will be cast out. God knows the heart of all of us, understands all our circumstances, and will judge faithfully in righteousness and equity. No one will be able to bring charges against God and accuse him of being unloving or unfair. But because God takes all circumstances and scenarios into account when he judges, his judgment once rendered, is final. The door is shut.

Steadfast love and faithfulness go before the throne of judgment

The scripture tells us of God that “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you” (Psalm 89:14, ESV). God’s judgments are neither malicious nor arbitrary; they are rooted in righteousness and justice and on this strong foundation steadfast love and faithfulness go before him as he judges. Pause on this: in ALL God’s judgments even condemnation, steadfast love and faithfulness go before his verdict. This means that before any judgment is made, one must encounter and get through the flood of His steadfast love and faithfulness. On the day of judgment, those who are condemned will know that their condemnation was preceded by God’s steadfast and exhaustive pursuit. Their mouths will be shut knowing that their fate is all their own. They have rejected the love that has gone before them. The Gospel which comes first offered them reconciliation, but instead “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10b, NIV).

This is why their condemnation is so sure: They have been given every opportunity to leave the kingdom of darkness and come into the light, but because they love the darkness more than the light they have chosen darkness.

Who are those who are condemned

God does not condemn the innocent. But of course, none of us are innocent. So let us rephrase this. God does not condemn those who come to him in repentance and faith. I am not aware of anywhere in scripture that says this is only a temporal truth that stops. However, the scripture does warn that our hearts can become so hardened that we will choose to never repent regardless of how much God pursues us. Gehenna is described as a place of “gnashing of teeth”, a term symbolizing hostility and anger. And this hostility is directed at God. Those who reject Jesus do so because they love their deeds more than the desire to come to God. God opposes the kingdoms they have made (more here). Those who are condemned are described as those who chose to persist in their wickedness, despite being offered hope through repentance and faith in the work and worth of Jesus. Here are some scriptures that describe this:

and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. (2 Thessalonians 2:10, ESV)

In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.” (Psalm 10:4, ESV)

If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the LORD. (Isaiah 26:10, ESV)

She listens to no voice; she accepts no correction. She does not trust in the LORD; she does not draw near to her God. (Zephaniah 3:2, ESV)

But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears that they might not hear. They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great anger came from the LORD of hosts. (Zechariah 7:11-12, ESV)

But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward. (Jeremiah 7:24, ESV)

O LORD, do not your eyes look for truth? You have struck them down, but they felt no anguish; you have consumed them, but they refused to take correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to repent. (Jeremiah 5:3, ESV)

For they are a rebellious people, lying children, children unwilling to hear the instruction of the LORD; (Isaiah 30:9, ESV)

The pride of Israel testifies to his face; yet they do not return to the LORD their God, nor seek him, for all this. (Hosea 7:10, ESV)

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:8, ESV)

And those who are in Gehenna remain there because they continue to love darkness and continue to refuse to turn to the light.

Daniel is told, “Many will be purified, made spotless, and refined, but the wicked will continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked will understand, but the wise will understand” (Daniel 12:10, BSB)

Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” (Revelation 22:11, ESV)

No one who is condemned desires to repent and come to God. If you continue to reject God, the only source of love, beauty, and goodness, what do you have left? Many of us have suffered the agony of lost or unrequited love. How much more is the agony of those who have rejected the very source of love and are hostile to it. The weight of their own rejection of goodness, beauty, and love is unimaginable. It is hell.

In Jesus’s discussion with Nicodemus, he confirms these things, when he states, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18, ESV). But this in of itself does not tell us the full story, for we already know that belief in Jesus is what distinguishes those who are saved from those who are condemned. But who is preventing those who are condemned from believing? Is it life events, circumstances, or others? None of these external factors keep the condemned from God. Instead, as our hearts stand naked before God, it is our hearts that condemn us. Jesus goes on to say that it is our own stubbornness that keeps us from the love of God.

Jesus describes those who are found guilty before the throne of God, “And this is the verdict: Light has come into the world but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” (John 3:19, NIV). Why are people condemned? It is because they love the darkness so much that they refuse to come to the light. There are no circumstances under which those who are in Gehenna would have or will turn to God. For them to do so would be to go against everything they love and treasure as good. They do not want God to be near because he is a threat to all they hold dear (more here).

Though they are at enmity with and reject God, those who are condemned will long for the goodness that those in the light have and so there will be “weeping” at this loss alongside their “gnashing of teeth” as there was with Esau. But this weeping is not accompanied by repentance or turning to God. Paul warns us, “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death” (2 Corinthians 7:10, NIV). They will long for the light, but not at the price of relinquishing the darkness they cherish so dearly. They are so ensnared and enslaved by their own desires that their love for the “drug” surpasses their desire to be healed.

And so the scriptures teach that it is those who both continue to walk in unrighteousness and refuse to come to God that are condemned. Those who repent and come to God are freely welcomed into the love of God. God does not keep those in Gehenna from repenting and coming to him, they are stuck there by the chains they have forged for themselves. We can have confidence that those in Gehenna would not have repented under any circumstances. Part of what makes Gehena so devastating is this: those who go there do not abandon their wickedness, but continually choose to separate themselves from God. They continue to choose to walk in wickedness continuing to incur further wrath. Gehena is not for the hypothetical person in Alex O’Conner’s imaginary scenario who if only given a few more moments would have believed, but died just before that. Gehena is for those who stubbornly and eternally continue in disbelief.

This is why the scripture urges us not to harden our hearts, for it is not death that will seal our condemnation, but rather a hardened and unrepentant heart. And this state can come long before we die, leaving us without hope both in this age and the age to come. This is why the scripture says, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Psalm 95:7-8, Hebrews 3:7-8,15; 4:7). The scripture warns that we should not assume that we will one day in the future change and have a repentant heart. Today is our opportunity. Again it is not death that finalizes our state, but a hard and unrepentant heart of unbelief. This can happen now at this moment, before death, so do not linger to come to God when you hear the call of the Gospel.

God exhausts his pursuit

Earlier, I mentioned that Alex O’Conner did not ask an appropriate question. The reason is that there will never be anyone in Gehenna who would have repented under other circumstances. However one might ask if the steadfast love and faithfulness that go before God’s throne is exhaustive. Has God done everything possible to bring this person to repentance? The scripture would support an affirmative answer. God’s readiness to forgive is an inherent part of God’s nature. When God’s glory came near to Moses, “The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, ‘The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Exodus 34:6). God was declaring this is who he is. Peter writes, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Other verses support this as well.

Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him. (Isaiah 30:18, ESV)

Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. (Luke 15:7, ESV)

Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:10, ESV)

Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love. He will again have compassion on us; He will vanquish our iniquities. You will cast out all our sins into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:18-19, ESV)

the LORD appeared to him from far away. I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you. (Jeremiah 31:3, ESV)

The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. (Psalm 103:8, ESV)

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34, ESV)

“How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you. Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof, (Proverbs 1:22-25, ESV)

God is eager to embrace the rebel

Not only is God slow to anger and patient, but he is also ready and eager to forgive the rebellious.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? (Ezekiel 18:21-23, ESV)

“Yet even now,” declares the LORD, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and he relents over disaster. (Joel 2:12-13, ESV)

“Son of man, give the people of Israel this message: You are saying, ‘Our sins are heavy upon us; we are wasting away! How can we survive?’ Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:10-11, ESV)

“Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. (Isaiah 55:6-8,ESV)

“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. (Isaiah 1:18, ESV)

To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against him. (Daniel 9:9, ESV)

who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4, ESV)

They refused to obey and did not remember the miracles you had done for them. Instead, they became stubborn and appointed a leader to take them back to their slavery in Egypt. But you are a God of forgiveness, gracious and merciful, slow to become angry, and rich in unfailing love. You did not abandon them, (Nehemiah 9:17, ESV)

Our death does not change God’s character

It is foolish for us to think that something like our death would change the nature of God. Death does not separate us from God. Not even our sin and rebellion alone separate us from God. It is a hard, unrepentant heart who refuses to come to God under any circumstances that ultimately seals the fate of those in Gehenna.

Yet the LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, “Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the Law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets.” But they would not listen, but were stubborn, as their fathers had been, who did not believe in the LORD their God. (2 Kings 17:13-14, ESV)

Yet the LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them again and again by His messengers, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place; but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD rose against His people, until there was no remedy. (1 Chronicles 36:15-16,ESV)

O LORD, do not your eyes look for truth? You have struck them down, but they felt no anguish; you have consumed them, but they refused to take correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to repent. (Jeremiah 5:3, ESV)

You have neither listened nor inclined your ears to hear, although the LORD persistently sent to you all his servants the prophets, saying, ‘Turn now, every one of you, from his evil way and evil deeds, and dwell upon the land that the LORD has given to you and your fathers from of old and forever. Do not go after other gods to serve and worship them, or provoke me to anger with the work of your hands. Then I will do you no harm.’ Yet you have not listened to me, declares the LORD, that you might provoke me to anger with the work of your hands to your own harm. (Jeremiah 25:4-7, ESV)

But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” (Romans 10:21, ESV)

He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:31, ESV)

What about Sodom?

In Matthew 11:24, Jesus states, “And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day” (ESV). Does this mean that people who are in hell would have repented if they were given a different circumstance? No, this verse is not about the individual, but about a city and a temporal situation not about the age to come. Even though this Sodom would have responded to the works of Jesus, this does not mean that individual hearts would have changed or that it would be more than an outward change. In the Gospels many times scripture refers to those who believed outwardly in Jesus but did not have saving faith. We see this with Ahab who is described in these words, “(There was none who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD like Ahab, whom Jezebel his wife incited. He acted very abominably in going after idols, as the Amorites had done, whom the LORD cast out before the people of Israel.)” 1 Kings 21:25-26, ESV). But after Elijah spoke and warned Ahab of God’s wrath, “when Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his flesh and fasted and lay in sackcloth and went about dejectedly. And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son’s days I will bring the disaster upon his house” (1 Kings 21:27–29, ESV). Despite Ahab’s superficial repentance, God readily relented putting Ahab to death, demonstrating his eagerness to show grace even to one of the worst kings of Israel. Sadly, it does not appear that Ahab responded to this act of grace. Jesus words about Sodom shows the eagerness God has to show kindness despite our hardened hearts. God extends love even to his enemies who reject him. To this kind of heart Paul aptly writes, “Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because you are stubborn and refuse to turn from your sin, you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself. For a day of anger is coming when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Romans 2:4-5, ESV).

But not everyone has the same knowledge of who God is

But you might say, “But not everyone has the same revelation”. And I would agree this is the case. However, this does not mean that God does not exhaustively pursue us or take all this into account as he judges us. Those with less knowledge will not be held to the same accountability of someone who has extensive knowledge of God. They will be judged based on their obedience to the knowledge of God they have been given. Paul states, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30, ESV). God knows our hearts and he will judge us by what we do know, not by what we do not know. But he has made himself known to us all, and so we are without excuse if we are not obedient to the revelation we do have. It is also clear that God is found by all who seek him with sincerity and that God is quick to bring us to himself. Paul in his address, “standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said:

“Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“ ‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“ ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:22–31, ESV)

Also consider this: God is loving even toward his enemies. He will not vindictively pile on judgment. For those who have already hardened their heart, more revelation would only bring more judgment. In the Gospels, there are occasions when it is clear that the hearts of those around Jesus were hard and he simply walks away, refusing to give himself to them. In some cases, this is the most loving thing for God to do. God in his wisdom knows how to give enough revelation so that those who are condemned are left without excuse, but then backing away when that revelation would only cause more condemnation. No one will stand before God and be judged by what they do not know. And no one who is condemned will accuse God of not pursuing them exhaustively. Their mouths will be shut and no accusation will be brought before God because they will acknowledge that his judgments are just and fair.

before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity. (Psalm 98:9)

before the LORD, for he comes, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness, and the peoples in his faithfulness. (Psalm 96:13, ESV)

then a throne will be established in steadfast love, and on it will sit in faithfulness in the tent of David one who judges and seeks justice and is swift to do righteousness.” (Isaiah 16:5, ESV)

God is patient and slow to anger, never quick to condemn. Those who face condemnation have first had to come through the flood of the unwavering steadfast love and faithfulness of God that go before his throne and precede his judgment. The only ones in Gehenna are those who have rejected God’s love.

A word of warning about bad questions

In the case above, Alex O’Conner posed a poorly framed question. Sadly, this is common among “atheist apologists”. It is easy to be skeptical and to phrase questions in a way that gives the appearance of wisdom on the surface, but upon closer examination only reveals our foolishness. I wrote more on this here. But my word of caution is this: If you find yourself asking these kinds of questions, take a moment to examine your heart. Persisting on asking foolish questions, even though there are good answers out there, suggests a deeper issue. Contrary to what some atheists will try to make you believe, there are good answers out there for these questions.

As Christians when dealing with these kinds of foolish questions, we must be aware we cannot know the hearts of those asking them. Those asking these questions may be sincere and we should to be patient with them. But we also should encourage them to examine their motives behind the questions as well, while addressing any genuine inquiries with gentleness and respect.

FURTHER SCRIPTURE READING: Luke 14:12-35 & 15

When Adam and Eve were created and placed in Eden, God covenentally commissioned humanity to be a people who were a royal priesthood. They were to rule through their relationship with God, spreading God’s glory throughout the world. There is something significant to this relationship, for it is in this relationship that the rule of God was to spread past Eden to the rest of the world as Adam and Eve were commanded “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion” ( Geneses 1:28). God spreads his glory through his relationship with us.

However, the covenant was broken with the fall. Though there were priests after the fall, they could not fully restore humanity to the relationship that they had with God before the fall. But God promised that one day, “the seed of the woman” would come and conquer the serpent, and in doing so conquer sin and death. The Bible tells us a story about how this was accomplished in Jesus. And for those who put their faith in Jesus, they are once again restored into this royal priesthood and God’s glory is spread throughout the world through the preaching of the Gospel.

Who is Melchizedek?

The author of Hebrews is eager to tell us about an enigmatic character called Melchizedek. It is from this priestly line that Jesus has the authority to conquer sin and make the law of Moses obsolete. We must remember that the author of Hebrews deals with the Hebrew context of the Gospel. In the Old Testament, there is a clear intimate and covenantal nature in God’s relationship with mankind. Just as a husband and wife promise to love one another through a covenant, so God establishes his promises with his people. For hundreds of years, those receiving this letter, along with their fathers and their fathers’ fathers, had pursued God legitimately under the Mosaic Covenant. For them, it was a well-worn path, comfortable, and felt secure. And now the author of Hebrews is telling them this is no longer the case. All the practices, rituals, sacrifices, and laws that had become innately a part of who they were were now obsolete and dead works. The law of Moses was no longer a means of repentance and entering God’s presence. What authority and covenant did Jesus have to overturn hundreds of years of covenant practice? The author of Hebrews argues that there is a covenant that both precedes and is greater than the Mosaic covenant, a covenant that the law of Moses itself calls us to. In the words of C.S. Lewis, “there is magic deeper still”.

The Covenant of Peace

While many are familiar with the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants in the Old Testament, one covenant relationship is often neglected in these discussions – the Priestly Covenant or the Covenant of Peace. This covenant is given to the Levites during the Exodus, and in the scripture, we find the Levitical Covenant running parallel with the Davidic Covenant. We see glimpses of the Davidic covenant in Judah as he is told, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” From Judah we can follow its progression down through to David and through to its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus. And it is the same with the Levitical Covenant.

For this is what the LORD says: David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, nor will the priests who are Levites ever fail to have a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to present sacrifices.”

And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “This is what the LORD says: If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that day and night cease to occupy their appointed time, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant and with My ministers the Levites who are priests, so that David will not have a son to reign on his throne. As the hosts of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so too will I multiply the descendants of My servant David and the Levites who minister before Me.”

Moreover, the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “Have you not noticed what these people are saying: ‘The LORD has rejected the two families He had chosen’? So they despise My people and no longer regard them as a nation. This is what the LORD says: If I have not established My covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth, then I would also reject the seed of Jacob and of My servant David, so as not to take from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore them from captivity and have compassion on them.” (Jeremiah 33:14-26)

God’s covenant with Levi was a covenant of peace. Malachi 2:4-7, says,

“So shall you know that I have sent this command to you, that my covenant with Levi may stand, says the Lord of hosts. My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him. It was a covenant of fear, and he feared me. He stood in awe of my name. True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.”

We see similar language when God proclaimed a blessing on Phinehas,

“And the Lord said to Moses, “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to this descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.’” (Numbers 25:10-13)

Covenantal focus: Judah to David and Levi to Zadok

Just as we see glimpses of the Davidic covenant with Judah, when Jacob was pronouncing blessings on his sons, his blessing for Levi, though it had the sounds of a curse rather than a blessing, foreshadowed the Levitical priesthood.

Simeon and Levi are brothers;

weapons of violence are their swords.

Let my soul come not into their council;

O my glory, be not joined to their company.

For in their anger they killed men,

and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen.

Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce,

and their wrath, for it is cruel!

I will divide them in Jacob

and scatter them in Israel. (Genesis 49:5-7)

This was meant to be a curse, yet in a profound action of grace, God took this curse, and it became a blessing for Levi. Yes, Levi was divided and scattered among Israel, and they were not allowed to have an inheritance in the land, fulfilling Jacob’s words, but the Levites gained something far greater –

And the LORD said to Aaron, “You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion among them. I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of Israel. (Numbers 18:20)

God set Levi apart from the rest of Israel to serve the Lord.

And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to the derision of their enemies), then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. And he said to them, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor.’” And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And that day about three thousand men of the people fell. And Moses said, “Today you have been ordained for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, so that he might bestow a blessing upon you this day.” (Exodus 32:25-29)

At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord to stand before the Lord to minister to him and to bless in his name, to this day. Therefore Levi has no portion or inheritance with his brothers. The Lord is his inheritance, as the Lord your God said to him. (Deuteronomy 10:8-9)

And as Judah’s promise would become more narrow in its focus and come to David, among the Levites, Aaron and his descendants were set apart as priests, and this would later be narrowed to the descendants of Zadock.

The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses. Aaron was set apart to dedicate the most holy things, that he and his sons forever should make offerings before the LORD and minister to him and pronounce blessings in his name forever. (1 Chronicles 23:13)

As seen earlier, it is with Aaron’s grandson, Phinehas, that we get the specific wording that the covenant of Levi is a covenant of peace. But after this promise, it is the sons of Ithamar that serve in the High Priest role, not Phinehas’s sons. But this would change. We soon find Eli, a descendant of Ithamar, whose sons have profaned the temple and God. Through Samuel, God tells Eli that his house will decline. And in Solomon’s reign, this is fulfilled, as Zadok, a descendant of Phineas, becomes high priest, and the high priesthood is taken away from the descendants of Ithamar. God fulfills the covenant of peace he made with Phinehas, and later God confirms the Levitical Covenant with Zadok, Phineas’ descendant.

“But the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the people of Israel went astray from me, shall come near to me to minister to me. And they shall stand before me to offer me the fat and the blood, declares the Lord God. They shall enter my sanctuary, and they shall approach my table, to minister to me, and they shall keep my charge. (Ezekiel 44:15,16)

The King and Priest

After Solomon, Israel went into decline and turned away from the Lord and were eventually sent into Babylon, and the temple was destroyed. However, God brought his people back to Jerusalem, where the temple was rebuilt. The High Priest during this time was a man named Yeshua or Joshua. At this time, God sent the prophet Zechariah with a message concerning Joshua,

The word of the LORD also came to me, saying, “Take an offering from the exiles—from Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon—and go that same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. Take silver and gold, make an ornate crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak.

And you are to tell him that this is what the LORD of Hosts says: ‘Behold, a man whose name is the Branch, and He will branch out from His place and build the temple of the LORD. Yes, He will build the temple of the LORD; He will be clothed in splendor and will sit on His throne and rule. There will also be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two of them.

The crown will reside in the temple of the LORD as a memorial to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Hene son of Zephaniah. Even those far away will come and build the temple of the LORD, and you will know that the LORD of Hosts has sent Me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God.” (Zechariah 6:9-15)

In this prophecy, we get elements of both the Davidic and Levitical Covenants. A crown is set on Joshua’s head, and then Zechariah cries out, “Behold, a man whose name is the Branch”. Both these are symbols of the Davidic covenant.

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a Righteous Branch, and He will reign wisely as king and administer justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is His name by which He will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness. (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

But Joshua was a Levite and not a descendant of David, so what is going on? The prophesy then goes on and describes both a king and a priest being on one throne, and that “the counsel of peace will be between the two”, echoing the covenant of peace that God made with Phinehas and the Levitical covenant.

The greatest of all men

And then the New Testament opens up and Mary and Joseph are told they are going to have a baby, who is a descendant of David, and they are to name this baby Yeshua, the same name of the High Priest that Zechariah prophesied over saying that both the Levitical and Davidic covenants would come together. We also learn about Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth, a descendent of Aaron, and of the miraculous birth of John the Baptist, born to a couple who, like Abraham and Sarah, were too old to have children. Though we cannot say with certainty that he was a descendant of Zadock or Joshua, it is likely. We can say with certainty that he was a descendant of Aaron and born to a priest named Zechariah, coincidently the same name as the prophet who prophesied the uniting of these two covenants.

And then in the wilderness (where the Levites were set apart in the Exodus), John the Baptist, a priest (descended from Aaron) and a prophet wearing the garments of Elijah, calls Israel to prepare the way for the Lord. In the midst of John’s ministry, Jesus comes to John to be baptized. John the Baptist at first relents, saying he is not worthy to baptize Jesus. But Jesus asks John to do this to fulfill all righteousness. On hearing this, John relents, obeys, and baptizes Jesus. This moment is significant.

For someone to become a priest, according to the law of Moses, they had to fulfill certain requirements.¹

• A Priest could not begin their ministry and service till they were 25-30 years of age. Jesus was 30 when he came to be baptized by John.
• They had to be called by God. Aaron and his descendants were called by God. God says of Jesus, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek” and “You are my beloved son, with you I am well pleased.”
• They had to be without physical defect. Jesus was without spot or blemish. He had no sin.
• They had to be male. Jesus was male.
• They had to be washed in the water of ordination and then clothed in priestly garments. Jesus was baptized, and the Holy Spirit descended on him.
• They had to be ordained by someone who was already a priest. John was a descendant of Aaron and rightly could ordain Jesus into the priesthood.
• They began ministering after the ordination. Jesus’ ministry began after his baptism.

It was also necessary for a prophet to anoint a king when a new line was being established. When John baptizes Jesus, he is anointed by the Holy Spirit and it is said that the Holy Spirit remained on him. This is foreshadowed when Samuel anoints David as king. “Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed [David] in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon David from that day forward” (1 Samuel 16:13).

In his baptism, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament law and its requirements for becoming a priest and king. He fulfilled all that the law demanded. He fulfilled all righteousness. This is why he tells John, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15).

John also had the right to pass on his mantle of prophet as Elijah did with Elisha. And in Jesus’ baptism he became the final word of God. As the writer of Hebrews states, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (Hebrews 1:1,2).

In this, Jesus did not presume to take these roles upon himself though it was his right to do so, but he humbled himself allowing these roles to come to him the appropriate way, “fulfilling all righteousness”. In every way, Jesus submitted himself to the law.

Jesus says of John, “I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he” (Luke 7:28). On person of John rested the mantals of both high priest and Elijah the prophet. There was no higher authority under the law of Moses. He had the right to declare Jesus the final prophet, priest, and king.

When John, an Aaronite priest whose name means “God is gracious”, baptized Jesus, he was transferring the Levitical covenant to Jesus. John could do this not only because he had the authority to do so, but because there was a covenant of peace before God’s promise to Phineas, through Abraham and Melchizedek.

For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.” And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. (Hebrews 6:13–7:10, ESV)

Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”, but he was also the king of Salem, which means “peace”, and therefore, the covenant of peace was rightly his. And so, Jesus was able to become a priest under the order of Melchizedek, who also was under the covenant of peace, whom the scripture states Levi in the loins of Abraham served. Truly there is a majic even deeper than the law of Moses.

And the priesthood rightly belongs to Jesus as Hebrews continues to argue,

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him,

“You are a priest forever,

    after the order of Melchizedek.”

For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:

“The Lord has sworn

    and will not change his mind,

‘You are a priest forever.’”

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. (Hebrews 7:11-28)

As our high priest, Jesus has once and for all conquered sin and death. He has fully redeemed those who come to him in faith. In Jesus, the prophesy is fulfilled, “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved” (Joel 2:32). And is now sitting at the right hand of God, the Father where “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to [Jesus]” (Matthew 28:18).

It is clear that Jesus had the authority to render the Law of Moses obsolute and to allow us to enter a new and better covenant of a royal priesthood, restoring what was lost by Adam at the fall. And He has called us once again to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion”, to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19)

Restoration of the royal priesthood and the Temple of God

In Jesus humanity is restored once again to their proper place as a royal priesthood. In Zechariah’s prophesy to Joshua, he says, “Even those far away will come and build the temple of the LORD.” Peter says, “As you come to [Jesus], the living stone, rejected by men, but chosen and precious in God’s sight, you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:4,5). As Jesus, when we are baptized, under Christ’s headship, Zechariah’s prophecy is fulfilled, and we are brought into the Covenant of peace under the order of Melchizedek.

[For] you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9, bold added)

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:5b-6)

 Interestingly, when the Bible speaks of Levi’s name, it says,

Again she conceived and bore a son, and said, “Now this time my husband will be attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” Therefore his name was called Levi. (Genesis 29:34)

Through the Gospel, we become attached to our husband. Peter goes on to say, “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy”  (1 Peter 2:10).  Hosea prophesies, “I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’ I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God’” (Hosea 2:23). We are not only a royal priesthood, we are the bride of Jesus.

After Jesus says of John the Baptist, “among those born of women there has risen no greater than John the Baptist”, he continues, “Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matthew 11:11). We truly are under a deeper and richer covenant that the Law of Moses, with stronger and more sure promises.

Incline your ear, and come to me;
hear, that your soul may live;
and I will make with you
an everlasting covenant,
my steadfast, sure love for David.
(Isaiah 55:3, ESV)

Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.” (Exodus 19:5–6, ESV)

More on this:

Galatians argues that the law of Moses cannot save us. While Galatians was written to the Gentiles, the book of Hebrews is the Galatians’ argument for the Jewish people. Because of the Melchizedek covenant, faith alone can save us, not the works of the law. Read more on this here: There no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgement

To learn how Jesus also held the role of Firstborn, read this article: The firstborn and the beginning of God’s creation

¹ adapted from “Waters of Creation” by Douglas Van Dorn pg7

Part of this written dialogue is below:

At this point, I think it would be helpful to clarify where our approaches agree and disagree, so I will summarize from my perspective, and you can comment on anything you think I got wrong. This will be a long post, so I have broken it up. Here is the outline

1. WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?
   1. Summary: God showing up would not be enough. “Empiricism” alone will not tell you whether or not God exists.
2. WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?
   1. Summary: We agree that there is an all-powerful, all-creative, infinite non-contingent cause
3. WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THE CAUSE WAS PERSONAL?
   1. Summary: A personal non-contingent cause must also be relational for us to know him.
4. SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS
   1. Summary: Because we have flawed brains, we should not bring our assumptions into the question of God’s existence.
5. WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS
   1. Summary: God’s goal is not for us to believe, but instead to have a relationship with him through the Gospel.
6. GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS
   1. Summary: God has given us a means to test the veracity of his existence – the Bible. And this is the pivotal point where we disagree.
7. WHAT ARE THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS FOR GOD FOR ME
   1. Summary: At the moment, atheist arguments are the strongest proof for me that God exists
8. YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS
   1. Summary: Blind skepticism will not accept evidence, but seeks a way to not have to deal with the evidence. Christian scholars because of the eternal consequences work hard to face the strongman arguments atheists have.
9. BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE
   1. Summary: The Christian God is the best explanation given the evidence that when all are added together approaches 100%.

WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?

I appreciate your understanding that we cannot trust our brains alone. Although I do not hold to solipsism, where we agree is that our brains are severely flawed and that we are often faulty interpreters of the world around us. I think this is why you hold “empiricism” in such a high esteem. The scientific method is something outside of ourselves though not independent of the brain that helps to hold us accountable and helps to mitigate these flaws. Though not perfect it provides checks and balances and helps us to get a better foundation on what is true. Because of this we both believe that the scientific method is a reliable means of finding truth. But “empiricism” alone has its limits. You asked, “What if the stars read, ‘I am Quetzalcoatl, the flying serpent, creator of all’? would you accept this?” No, I would not. I have told you that I understand this skepticism that atheists have. My point in presenting this example of atheists saying that even if God showed up they would not believe was not to show that a certain amount of skepticism here is inappropriate, but that “empiricism” alone could not tell you the difference between whether or not this being was God or just a vastly superior being with greater technology or whether you have gone mad or not (although mass hallucinations like this don’t happen, so this really is not possible). The “Three Body Problem” fictional story even posits that a sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to alter our ability to do science. So, regardless of what “miracles” were performed or what great physical feats were presented “empiricism” will always allow for a means to not believe in God. Or in other words the “science in the gaps” will always allow for another possible explanation. If you have the perspective that as long as one can provide a “science in the gaps” argument, that that one should not believe in God, then “empiricism” will always lead to atheism. This kind of criterion is not an open-minded query, nor does it allow for the best explanation based on the data. We have both demonstrated this weakness of “empiricism”. Given this fact, it would be unwise to hold onto only “empiricism”, for it can only lead to one closed conclusion. It is clear that we need to look to more than “empiricism” to fully explore this question. In order to explore a question, one must allow for the full range of possibilities. I do believe that science provides evidence that is consistent with and points to the Christian God. But I would also argue that scholarly arguments outside of science but are well established and accepted lines of inquiry and evidence in academia provide sound evidence that the Christian God exists and give us a fuller picture of what that might mean and is a fuller explanation of the data we find, without having to appeal to an “in the gaps”.

WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?

What can we know with science? I think it would be helpful to qualify what we both agree we can know through science about the creation or eternal existence of our universe. The more we learn about our universe, the more we discover that our universe has fine-tuning and design. Despite that this has been used to bolster the argument for God, an argument that has its beginnings long before we knew what we know today in science, but has grown stronger the more and more we do learn about science, because of the repeatable and measurable evidence for fine-tuning it is something that is generally agreed on within the scientific community, though the terminology may be different. This growing evidence for fine-tuning has forced atheists to address this issue and grapple with what it means. Saying fine-tuning exists doesn’t establish a cause and obviously the atheist and theist have come to different conclusions.  But both atheists and theists would agree that there must either be an eternal non-contingent cause or an eternal cyclical cause and effect. And this is where the atheists and theists look to try to explain fine-tuning. Another condition that must be met is that this non-contingent cause must be able to explain the probability that we see within the fine-tuning and design within our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. This gets into a more complicated argument than we have room for here, but all this is without calculating the probabilities needed for evolution to occur or for the information found within the universe, which from what we can tell most likely cannot be preloaded into the universe at the beginning and so would be outside of the physics and cosmological constants that existed at the beginning of the universe. Here is a summary of the probabilities that must be overcome:

• Must be able to explain fine-tuning at every step.
• Must be able to overcome the gambler’s fallacy.
• Must be able to explain the directive nature of evolution and information, which from what we can tell cannot be pre-loaded into the universe at the beginning.
• Must be able to explain the information found in our universe.
• Must be able to explain design or apparent design at every step.
• Must be able to explain either the beginning or eternal aspect of nature

But to put it simply there are a lot of odds to overcome that go beyond the beginning of our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. But here we come to another point where both atheists and theists agree. In order to overcome this, the non-contingent cause must be all-powerful, capable of creating infinite universes, but not only infinite universes but be able to generate a full spectrum of universes in sufficient amounts to overcome the probabilities. This can be done by either having a full spectrum infinite multi-universe generator or using a process that weeds out all other possibilities but our own before creating our universe. Currently with what we know the first option could be both impersonal or personal. The second option is most likely personal. But let’s pause on where we do agree for a moment. We both agree that our universe was created by an invisible, eternal, all-powerful force. Interestingly, this conclusion reminds me of a quote from the agnostic Robert Jastrow, “He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers” (1978), p. 116; (p. 107 in 1992 edition). What we can agree on and what we know to be true reminds me of the verse that says, “By faith we understand that the world has been created by the word of God so that what is seen has not been made out of things that are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). Neither the atheists nor theologians have specific 100% proof within science for their positions here. We just don’t know enough about science yet. But despite not having 100% proof both the scientist and the theologian believe or have faith that something eternal, all-powerful, and invisible created our universe. We agree that our universe “has not been made out things that are visible”. And we both believe that our universe was made out of something eternal and infinite. Science shows us that there is an all-powerful, eternal, invisible cause to our universe, but we still have to ask ourselves whether or not there is a personal cause behind this. Atheists believe that evidence will come to show that a self-existing multi-universe generator is possible. A directive force or a specific beginning is not something that atheists at this time support. Theists are open to either a self-existing multi-universe generator or a directive force behind our universe. I do think there are good arguments that show that science does point to God and has stronger explanatory power than that the atheist’s position, but I feel that I am not yet equipped to argue these points yet. I am still in the middle of my research, so I would rather leave the argument here, where I feel like we both have agreement. Regardless, the question remains whether or not the initial non-contingent cause of our universe is impersonal or personal. We cannot prove a non-personal or a non-relational personal cause, but if the cause is not only personal, but is also relational, we would suspect that this non-contingent cause could be found and known. But then we must ask how would this personal and relational non-contingent cause reveal himself?

WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THERE IS A PERSONAL GOD?

If the non-contingent cause is personal, we would only know this if that non-contingent cause chose to reveal himself. An all-powerful being could make a universe purely using science. Therefore, for us to know God, one of the things we could expect is that this God is both personal and relational. If this personal non-contingent cause were not relational, it would also probably be a moot point, since neither the atheist nor theist could have a relationship with this kind of god. So, I would argue that if there is a God, for us to have a relationship with this god, it would be important that this god be relational. And if the cause of the universe is relational, we have to ask ourselves, how would we come to know this creator? Afterall, we have both concluded that if God showed up “empiricism” would invalidate such an attempt. Though showing up would be a means of revealing himself, we would want more, since we are dealing with our flawed brains. So how would we come to know God given our flawed brains?

SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN PRESUMPTIONS?

One certain way to not know this God is to trust our flawed brains. Since a non-contingent cause is powerful enough to create a universe that is so far beyond us, that we are just getting started in exploring its depths, we cannot assume we can fully understand this God on our own power with our flawed brains. We would need this God to condescend and reveal to us who he is. One of the flaws of the atheist is that they bring in their own presumptions to this question. They trust their flawed brains and determine for themselves what this God ought to be like. You will often here questions phrased in the format of

1. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving etc., then he would . . . (fill in the blank)
2. Since God has not done . . . (fill in the blank), God does not exist.

Some examples are (fill in the blank) God would . . .:

• not be hidden.
• God would be clear in his revelation of himself
• would reveal himself in such and such a way.
• want me to believe.
• find a way to get me to believe.
• Prove himself 100% through empirical means.
• provide one definitive argument for God.
• not allow . . .
• not allow for suffering or evil
• not have done this.
• has not made the church I believe he said he would.
• have perfect church without disagreements on theology.
• conform to my interpretation of scripture.
• fit my expectations of what a god ought to be.
• Etc.

Like “empiricism” this approach presumes or forces a conclusion rather than performing an objective and open query. God must meet these made-up arbitrary requirements in order to exist. This is a deeply troubling approach for a group that states that they have a scientific approach and who state that we cannot trust our brains because they are flawed. These presumptions are flawed because they start with what our flawed brains assume God would be like. In my communication on the topic of the hiddenness of God I demonstrated that these presumptions are flawed and cannot stand up to scrutiny (for more go here). A scientific approach would not presume that we could bring our presumptions into this query. An all-powerful, all-creative, infinite relational being is not a “one-dimensional” being that we can presume to understand either what he is like or how this being would reveal himself. We are having enough difficulty understanding the physical universe or relationships in our lives. These are flawed arguments from flawed brains. As in science we can’t start with pre-conceived criteria or have an unmovable conclusion and expect to get anywhere. Because we have such flawed brains in order to know God, we would need something outside ourselves which like the scientific method would allow for accountability, evaluation, and testing.

WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS

We will get back to the question on how God has revealed himself, but first we need to address one of the errors atheists make first. They assume the goal God has for humanity is for them to believe that he exists. Or that there ought to be some definitive absolute evidence they can look to. This is a fallacious assumption. Atheists argue that God would know how to prove that he exists, with no effort. I agree, but that is not his goal. Atheists also argue that the Bible ought to be clearer. Again, you assume God’s purpose is to be clear. It is not. His goal is not for us to believe he exists or for the church to have perfect doctrine. His goal is to bring a people into relationship with himself through the power of the gospel. In our dialogue earlier on the “hiddenness of God”, I demonstrated that these assumptions atheists make would not be the goal of a perfectly loving God. I won’t go into it and rehash those arguments here. You can reread what I sent you (or go here). But for God to be both perfectly loving to those who come to him and to those who reject him, he must be “hidden”. And this fact in itself, his “hiddenness”, is evidence for God’s existence, for only a perfectly loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God could accomplish this.

 GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS

If God is relational, we can assume he would reveal himself. And I would argue he has in many sundry ways, some of which includes science, logic, philosophy, beauty, and personal experience. And for many this revelation is so extraordinary that it is enough for them to believe. But though he has revealed himself in these ways, these things alone can only tell us so much. For us to know God in a relational way, God must reveal himself in a relational way and in a way that does not violate his “hiddenness” which protects us. We intuitively know this in our own relationships with others. “Empiricism” is not relational. Even though we would not expect science to be inconsistent with God, if God were to reveal himself, certainly it would not be through “empiricism”, for as shown earlier “empiricism” would not be an effective means. We have both agreed that just showing up and even writing in the stars would not work. But we have also agreed that because of our flawed brains, we would want something outside of ourselves, something that can be evaluated, scrutinized, and tested. I have talked with my children on how personal experiences or hearing a “voice from heaven” would not be a valid means in of itself for God to reveal himself, since it is limited in the ways it could be evaluated or tested. People are flawed. There are conditions where people here voices that are not real. Many have “heard god”, only for it to be clear that they had not, whether from madness, selfishness manipulation, or from other voices. And our feelings and experiences as well can skew our thinking. And from these experiences there are many religions in the world. How do we know which one is true?

We must be careful not to take this too far and on the other side to say things like science and experience are not useful in coming to know God. Like science, experiences can point us to God, and we would expect these things to be consistent with God, but also like science because of our flawed brains we would need to be cautious. For example, the fine-tuning, design, and information arguments are extremely powerful arguments for God that have only grown stronger the more we have learned about science. But I think for the both of us, we would like to something more, we want something that takes into account our flawed brains, something that is subject to scrutiny and rigorous analysis and evaluation, after all how would we distinguish it from all the other religions as the true religion. Thankfully, God does not intend for us to rely on our flawed brains. The most powerful means by which God has revealed himself to us is through the Bible. The Bible is something that can be scrutinized, evaluated, and tested to see if its claims hold up and are true. It can be evaluated against other religions. It can be evaluated against science, logic, philosophy, and academia. It is something that can be evaluated outside our flawed brains. The reason I would not believe in Quetzalcoatl in the scenario above is because there is no such evidence. If Jesus showed up on the other hand I would already have enough vast and extraordinary evidence to believe.

And here is the pivotal point where we disagree. You do not believe that the Bible holds up to scrutiny. I believe it does. You don’t believe that the Bible conforms with the world you see around you, with science, or even is consistent with itself. I on the other hand do believe that the Bible is consistent with the world I see around me, with science, and is consistent with itself.

WHAT IS MY STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR GOD – ATHIEST ARGUMENTS

You asked me what my strongest argument for God is. For me it is the integrity of the Bible. A follow up question might be what for me is the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible. At this moment, for me, the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible are atheist arguments. I have mentioned to you before that I believe in putting the strong men in the ring and letting them fight to the death. Atheist arguments rather than doing this stick a strawman in the ring and fight against that. Within this group though I have not read everything posted, from what I have read, I have not seen one argument that actually attacks the Christian faith or the Bible. We have both determined that the brain is flawed and is often not a reliable interpreter of the data. There are both atheists and theists who believe in a “flat earth” and they claim to have science to back them up. You will say that they are not using science correctly. Bingo! This is my point. When atheists make claims against the veracity of the Bible, they fail to use the Bible correctly, just as flat earthers fail to use science correctly. This is why when coming to the scriptures we must rely on proper hermeneutics and rigorous scholarship and an open mind. It is clear when atheists talk about the Bible, they have no clue what they are talking about, nor does it seem that they are willing to do the arduous work to understand. You state that there are 1000s of inconsistencies in the Bible. Let’s be honest, we both know that there are only a handful worth talking about, and of those none of them touch doctrine or faith. What I have found in atheists’ arguments is a very narrow understanding of the Christian faith and a lack of engagement with the robust scholarship within Christian community to the point where most of the arguments I have come across can only be described as slander. Sure, perusing the internet or social media you will find poor Christian answers, but I am talking about the well-studied, professionally researched, scholastic work that has been done. The stuff that requires more than a casual engagement and requires years and years of challenging work. When I sent you a link to videos, you said there were a lot. The reality is you will probably not do the hard work. And I understand the challenge and the difficulty of what I ask, you are a busy person. And what I sent was basic stuff, it would only begin to touch the work done to answer atheists’ questions. But this is the type of scholastic work that atheists fail to address against the Christian faith, because they don’t have the inclination to do this kind of work. Because you have not done the work, you have not been able to present a legitimate argument against the Bible or the Christian faith.

And this is why I believe the Bible; it has been tested. It has been tested by the harshest critics, the strongest strongmen atheists have to offer, and it has stood up to that test. You have not been able to provide not even one valid argument against the Christian faith but insist on believing that you do have a good argument. On the other hand, Atheist arguments have consistently demonstrated errors in logic and scholarship. Here are a few.

Places where Atheists violate proper literary textual analysis

• Authorial intent errors
• Cultural
• Wooden literalism
• Assumption of presentism
• Genre Fallacy
• Contextual analysis error
• Etymology error
• Synchronic meaning error
• Syntactic Fallacy
• Symantec range Fallacy
• Argument of Silence Fallacy
• Description is not prescription
• Assume a different definition
• Assume a static scene
• False dilemma
• Fallacy of false equivocation
• Elephant hurling
• Species fallacy
• Sweeping generalization fallacy
• Subset fallacy
• Genetic Fallacy

YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS

You will say, “Well it is on you to prove to me that God exists. I have a lack of belief, It should not be hard to prove your case”. Have you ever tried to reason with someone who believes in a “flat earth”? The reason people believe in the “flat earth” is not because they are stupid. The problem is actually the opposite. The problem is that our flawed brains are quite intelligent and able to come up with arguments to support what we believe. Despite the evidence you give “flat earthers”, and despite the fact that it is common sense evidence, they are smart enough are able to come up with an answer to why that evidence is irrelevant, without having to actually address the evidence itself. And this is often how blind skepticism works. Most of the arguments you have given me are reasons why you don’t have to evaluate the evidence. If skepticism is your foundation, evidence becomes a lot less relevant in the discussion. Whatever evidence is produced, blind skepticism can explain it away or ignore it, without facing and addressing the actual arguments or evidence.

You might ask, “How do I know that I have not done the same with my arguments for God?” Because I and other Christian scholars work hard to try to understand the depths of atheists’ arguments and represent them fairly. If I have misunderstood one of your arguments, I want to know. Remember we have stronger eternal motives in wanting to convince atheists to believe in God. We cannot do this well if we don’t understand what atheists believe and actually address the questions they are having. Good Christian scholars work hard to put the strongest man for the atheists in the ring. Not only do they try to fully address atheist strong man arguments, but they also try to make atheist arguments even stronger. Christian scholars work hard to allow atheists to put the strong man into the ring. I don’t see the same rigor among atheists. Again, I have not seen one post in this group that actually attacks the Christian faith. After seeing the Bible time and time again put these strongman arguments to death, you start to develop a trust in its veracity. When time and time again you see atheists putting strawman and fallacious reasoning into the ring, the less and less you feel like you can take their arguments seriously. I believe the Bible because there are objective means outside my brain that allow me to test its veracity. Christianity is probably the most scrutinized religion and the Bible the most scrutinized book. Both have held against that scrutiny. And I am not talking about the fact that Christianity still exists. I am talking about the fact that Christianity actually addresses strong man arguments put up against it. Take our conversations, I have been able to demonstrate several points of fallacious reasoning within your arguments. I don’t think my arguments are perfect either, but you have not been able to do the same with my arguments.

BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE

Why do I believe in God. I believe in God because given the evidence in the science, in philosophy, in psychology, in history, in art, the presence of evil, morality, ethics, personal experience and the experience of others, and in the Bible, the Christian God has the fullest and best explanatory power for what I see in this world. I can’t give you one definitive proof that God exists, but all these things put together the probability that God exists approaches 100%.

How would I convince you that there is a God? I don’t know. I am not naive, just as “flat earthers” have their answers to evidence presented to them, so too atheists have their answers. The reality is I am not going to be able to provide you a one fits all definitive argument to suddenly convince you that God exists. This is not how our flawed brains work. This is not how you would convince a “flat earther” even though we both know that the evidence for the globe is overwhelming and is absolutely right. I think these things just happen over time as we dialogue.  But I suppose this is not surprising if God cares more about relationship than belief.

Peter could remember that during his ministry, Jesus spoke of and warned Jerusalem with tears of the coming judgment that awaited them, for they had rejected the coming of God in their midst. Jesus had told him and the other disciples, “Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” As Peter stood there before the crowd on Pentecost, he knew the world would never be the same, Jesus was on his throne and a new age had come.

After the darkness had fallen over Jerusalem, Jesus resurrected, conquered death, and ascended to glory to sit at the right hand of God. And now forty days later, during Pentecost, the disciples had been gathered together in prayer, when tongues of fire fell upon them, and they began to proclaim the mighty works of God. Now, as those who were around them were astonished and sought to understand the things happening, Peter, in this first sermon, describes the coming storm and the coming of this new age,

      “ ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, 
      that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,  
                     . . .
       in those days I will pour out my Spirit, 
       and they shall prophesy. 
      And I will show wonders in the heavens above 
          and signs on the earth below, 
          blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 
      the sun shall be turned to darkness 
      and the moon to blood, 
      before the day of the Lord comes, 
      the great and magnificent day. 
               (Acts 2:17a,18b–20, ESV)

Peter declares to the men of Israel, now, what they are seeing before them, is this time Joel spoke of. Now are the last days of the old age. And though Jesus had been delivered over to death by lawless men, death could not hold him. Jesus not only conquered death but was now sitting on his throne. Jesus had begun his rule and had begun the work of putting his enemies under his feet. Peter quotes Psalm 110:1, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool”, admonishing them “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:34-35, ESV). Those in the crowd were aware of the darkness that had fallen over Jerusalem and the rumors surrounding Jesus’ life and death. As Peter spoke of Jesus’ resurrection, and his ascension to the throne at the right hand of God, those who heard his words understood the implications of Peter’s words. A war was coming, and Jesus was going to conquer his enemies. Their judgment was near. Peter confirmed these fears, warning to the crowd, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). On hearing these things, “They were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).

Acts begins with these words, “In my first book, O Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach . . ..” Luke is clear that Acts is a continuation of the works of Jesus. As Jesus sat on his throne, because of what he did at the cross, the Holy spirit was being unleashed on the world. Jesus, told his disciples, “I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged” (John 16:7–11, ESV). So as Acts opens, Jesus is on his throne, active in this world and has begun to put his enemies under his feet through the power of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Gospel. The war had begun. Judgement was coming for Jerusalem and the old age. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice and his perfect priesthood, the Temple was no longer needed. The old age was dying as the new age was taking over.

In these early chapters of Acts we see this war taking place as the rulers of Jerusalem try to hold on to their kingdoms in midst of the conquering power of the Gospel. They try to prevent the preaching of the Gospel and the speaking of the name of Jesus. Later in Acts as the Gospel spreads to the Gentiles it is said that preaching of the Gospel has turned the world upside down. The Gospel had not come to play nice, but instead it had come to make war and to conquer and that war had begun in Jerusalem.

Before we meet Annanias and Sapphira, we are told that many who had come to faith had sold their land and laid the proceeds at the apostles’ feet to be distributed to any who had need. Jerusalem is the only place we see amongst the church where this was practiced. Though it does not explicitly give the reason for this, we do see in these early passages of Acts hints to that they were aware that Jerusalem was a ticking time bomb. Jesus had warned that judgement would come within their generation, and as Peter had said, they had witnessed the prophesied signs of that judgement. Jesus had warned that when that time comes, and they see the armies surrounding Jerusalem, they were to flee and not pause to take anything with them, just as Lot was rushed out and warned not look back as he fled Sodom. What they owned in Jerusalem would not last, especially the land. Israel throughout the wilderness narrative, though they were called out of Egypt for the Promised Land, longed to go back to Egypt. This looking back, this holding on to the old kingdom, was to their destruction and kept them from entering the Promised Land. For the early church, the physical Jerusalem was no longer their hope, but as with Abraham they were looking to a kingdom not built by human hands. The epistle of Hebrews speaks of this when warning those who wished to “look back” to Jerusalem and to the Law with its sacrificial system. Hebrews urges them to follow the example of those who have walked in faith before us, by “admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. And we are not to “return” or “hold on” to our former country, but as Abraham we are to leave it behind. And though there may be opportunity to return, instead we are looking for a better country – a heavenly one (Hebrews 11:13-16, paraphrased). So, their selling of their lands though truly an act of charity, for the Christian faith certainly invokes such profound acts of love, was more than an act of charity, it was also an act of faith, rejecting the kingdom of this world that was fading away, and whose judgement was sure and declaring the surety of the promises of God in the Gospel to bring us into a Kingdom whose foundation is sure and everlasting.

So throughout Acts we see the Kingdom of God coming to conquer the world. Let’s look back at another time when Israel had come to conquer the Promised Land. When Joshua took Israel into the Promised Land, they were to completely destroy the pagan culture in the land, as they trampled under their feet the old kingdoms and brought the new kingdom under the rule of the God of Israel.

In their first battle with Jericho, this city, as Jerusalem would be in 70 A.D., had been given over to destruction. All that was within Jericho had been declared devoted to the Lord. Just as the church fleeing Jerusalem were not to stop to take things with them, so too Israel was not to take any of the spoils from the fallen Jericho with them. And yet after this first battle with Jericho, a man named Achan, in love with the things of this old world held on to a beautiful cloak and money, objects that had been devoted to destruction. Symbolically, when he held on to these things he was holding on to the old pagan kingdom. As in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, the LORD says of Achan that he had transgressed the covenant and kept for himself things that were devoted to the LORD, declaring that Achan lied and hid his actions and his possessions from the congregation. And based on the context, most likely with the full knowledge and consent of his family. Before Ananias and Sapphira sold the land it was theirs to do with as they pleased, when they sold it, the proceeds were still theirs to dispose of it as they wished. But when they came before the congregation and set it aside declaring it as fully devoted to the Lord, it was no longer theirs to do with it as they wished, it was the Lord’s. And as with Achan, they transgressed the covenant, stole from the Lord, and lied and hid their actions from the congregation. They lied to the Holy Spirit and the church. This was no small sin. Though they might fool the church, they could not fool the Holy Spirit. And as the Lord exposed Achan’s sin and he was put to death, so too their sin was exposed by the Holy Spirit, and they died. Both of Achan’s death and the death of Ananias and Sapphira serve as a vivid and concrete warning to all who desire to hold on to the things of this world. The Gospel is at war with this world and with our sinful hearts and separates us from this old kingdom. We cannot hold on to the old world for if we do, we will be destroyed with it.

We don’t know what the eternal state of Ananias and Sapphira was. Both with Achan and Ananias and Sapphira, their sin affected the congregation not just themselves and served as a vivid warning. This act symbolized more than greed, but a holding on to an age that Jesus was at war with, and God wanted to make clear that the old world must die. The most we can say for sure is that their deaths were a means to make this point clear. And there are other passages like this where God putting someone to death does not tell us of the person’s eternal state. In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he says some have become ill and some have died because they have approached the Lord’s supper inappropriately and were profaning it. And on top of this the rich were taking advantage of the poor, something we know the Lord detests. But it also follows with this hope, “But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:32). Or take the case of Uzzah who merely touched the ark when he saw oxen startled and probably with good intention and was struck dead. We cannot make any assumptions. But the warning in these stories is clear. And it is a warning we see throughout the Bible, flee the things of this world for it is marked out for destruction, do not hold on to them, leave them behind, don’t look back, flee the judgement to come, and come to Jesus.

Hebrews was written to address those who because of persecution were considering leaving Christianity and going back to the Law of Moses and the sacrificial system. The writer of Hebrews explains, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13, ESV). When Christ died and rose again the Temple and the sacrificial system was declared obsolete and could no longer bring them to repentance even if they sought it with tears and weeping. The only means for repentance was through Jesus. As the Gospel was being preached in the book of Acts the old Temple system was vanishing away, and would be finally destroyed in 70 AD. So yes, in the book of Acts, we see a war taking place within Jerusalem between the kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of God. Those who believed the words of Jesus and the judgment to come were choosing to leave the old Jerusalem behind, for a new Jerusalem that cannot be shaken. In Acts 5 this understanding consisted of realizing that the property they owned was fading away and they couldn’t take it with them and so they sold it and gave the proceeds to the church.  

So now what does this mean for us? This all may be true, but what is the comfort? If you are like me, this passage leaves you uncomfortable, trembling as fear creeps up and is difficult to shake off. And as seen in the passage, we are not alone. At the death of Ananias and Sapphira, great fear fell upon the church. I instinctively know that I am no better than Ananias and Sapphira. Doesn’t my own heart hold on to the things of this world? Surely it does. Or more honestly, with me, I know it does. Though I desire to put to death my flesh, I am like Paul in Romans 7, a wretched man failing every step of the way, still doing the things I hate, and not doing the things I love. When my pastor preached on Acts 5, he noted that Peter, who seems to stand tall in this scene, would later fail and once again act in a way contrary to the Gospel, when he, on coming to Antioch, “drew back” and chose to eat separately from the Greeks. He, like Ananias and Sapphira, allowed pride and wanting to be seen as great before men dictate his behavior. When he did this, he did not only compromise himself, but also the other Jews followed his example. Even Barnabas, who was singled out before the incident with Ananias and Sapphira as one who did indeed sold a field and brought all the money to the apostles, fell into sin with Peter. When this happened, Paul is not shy with his words; he states that Peter “stood condemned” and that “their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel.” So, tell me, if even this great man was prone to fail, what is my hope?

When God placed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, they were commanded to spread Eden over the face of the whole world. The Kingdom of God was to conquer the world. However, because of their desire for something more than God and his kingdom, they took for themselves what was forbidden, and attempted to hide their sin. When the LORD came, judgement was pronounced, and death came into the world. As Achan’s sin brought death to others, so because of Adam’s sin, death came to all mankind. So, this clinging on to the forbidden and hiding our sin is not just an issue with Adam and Eve, Annanias and Sapphira, or Achan, we too fall under the same condemnation.

One of the great hymns, Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing describes this struggle I feel, “Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it; Prone to leave the God I love.” I am so prone to be distracted by the beauty of this world, wanting to hold onto it, and not let it go. Thankfully, the song does not leave us in despair, it describes how grace, like a fetter, binds and seals are hearts to God. For we have been purchased by Jesus’ blood. And this is the theme of Hebrews as well as it warns us not to hold on to the old age. God through Jesus has accomplished our salvation once for all and He draws us to himself. After describing those who in the past walked by faith, the writer of Hebrews says, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfector of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12:1-2, ESV). Paul in his struggles with holding on to sin states, Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! . . . . There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 7:24-8:1). Jesus has conquered and sits on his throne and will accomplish his work in me.

The opposite of hiding and clinging on to our sin is confessing our sin and calling upon the name of the LORD to deliver us from our sin. As our hearts struggle with sin, do we hide our sin and shrink back, or do we come to the Lord with our sin and lay it down at his feet, trusting in the work and worth of Jesus alone? For as we lay down our sins, not trusting in our own works, but in the works of Jesus, we can come before the throne of grace and live. There is no need to hide, even in our most grievous sin. David experienced this, “For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away, through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,’ and you forgave the iniquity of my sin”(Psalm 32:3-4, ESV). And so, we are called to “Be not like a horse or a mule, without understanding which must be curbed with bit and bridle, or it will not stay near you” (Psalm 32:9, ESV). We are to come close to our Father.

Instead of death, as we come before God’s throne in Christ, the Father, as a parent washing their kid, lovingly washes us and brings healing through the blood of Jesus. The writer of Hebrews goes on to describe this comfort we have in the midst of God’s discipline in the church,

And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?

      “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,

      nor be weary when reproved by him.

      For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,

      and chastises every son whom he receives.”

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. (Hebrews 12:5–13, ESV)

In the first sermon of this war as the Gospel moves to conquer, Peter predicates our victory on the fact that Jesus is sitting on his throne. And it is because of this fact that we can run to Jesus, who is the founder and perfector of our faith. The victory has been accomplished. When Peter spoke of the judgement to come, the people “were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ Peter gives us the answer to how we are to save ourselves from this crooked generation, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:37-39, ESV).

So, when we read these passages, there must be no doubt that these passages are anchored in the fact that Jesus is sitting on his throne, and will conquer our hearts, for he alone is the founder and perfector of our faith. He has made a covenant promise that he will save all those who call upon the name of Jesus. The passage about Annanias and Sapphire is sandwiched between statements of the church conquering Jerusalem, the gospel spreading, and many coming to the faith. Adam and Eve’s sin, Achan’s sin, Annanias and Sapphira’s sin, and even my sin are not enough to prevent the advancement of the Kingdom of God. This passage ends with, “The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed” (Acts 5:16). After this act of discipline, the war was now going out beyond the confines of Jerusalem and bringing healing. God’s discipline brings healing, therefore the writer of Hebrews can say in the midst of God’s discipline, “lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.” God’s discipline reminds us of and brings us back to the Gospel. And so, we see that the aftermath of the stark discipline in Acts 5 ushered in an expansion of the kingdom and healing of many through the power of the gospel.

Prayer: May the God who cherishes me guide me through his nurturing discipline, conquering my heart and putting to death anything inside of me that holds on to this age. For it is in his discipline that I am liberated from the sin that clings to me, overwhelms me, and weighs me down. And it is through his rebuke that my lamed feet are healed. It is my Father’s loving discipline that allows me to run faster to the one I love. “Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16, ESV).

—

Foot note: We cannot say definitively what the motivations were behind those selling the land, but it is clear from these passages that the old kingdom with its Temple practices was passing away, and a New Kingdom, founded in Jesus, was taking its place. A seismic shift was taking place in the land just as occurred when the Israelites came into the promised land under Joshua. It is also clear that the gifts that were presented and laid at the apostles’ feet were declared fully devoted to the Lord, making their holding back a portion a serious offense, just as Achan held back a portion of the things devoted to the Lord. We see a similar situation with Saul, when he did not handle the things devoted to the Lord appropriately. And from epistle of Hebrews, we know there was this tension between holding on to the old Temple and its practices in light of the finished work of Christ.

– – –

Here is a link to the sermon my pastor preached on Acts 5. It is a sermon on the healing power of this passage as the Gospel is unleashed in the fullness of its power – The Law | Acts 4:33-5:16 (youtube.com).

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church

On this rock I will build my church

The term “church” means “assembly” a term often used of Israel in the Old Testament. There is no controversy that Jesus is talking about the raising up and the building of a people of God, a holy nation. And this is what the Gospel has done as it has spread across the world. But what is the foundation for the church, this assembly, this people or as Peter will later call it a “spiritual house”? Who or what is Jesus referring to when he says, “this rock”? And how does this all relate to the “gates of hell” and the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”? And how does this all center around “You are the Christ, the son of the living God”?

Is the rock Peter?

The Catholics believe that “this rock” refers to Peter and in turn the succession of popes. If the term “rock” is referring to Peter as the leader or “pope” of the church, we don’t see this elsewhere. And this understanding does not appear to be clear either to Peter or the other disciples because they argued multiple times about who would be the greatest after this event. Also, immediately after this Jesus rebukes Peter and says, “Get behind me, Satan”. And the reason Jesus rebukes Peter is because he has strayed from the foundation of the faith. There being no other passage associating Peter with being the foundation or rock of the church, this verse is not the most solid grounds for claiming scriptural support for the pope. There is no scriptural or historical reason to assume that Peter is the “rock” Jesus is referring to, without bringing something outside of the scripture into the text.

How is the symbology of the rock used elsewhere?

However, we do get a consistent theme that is carried throughout scripture of the “rock”, “stone”, or “foundation” upon which the church is built all referring to this central phrase, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God”. When these illustrations are used, they are referring to Jesus, Jesus’ words, or the teaching of the Gospel.

Jesus quotes the Old Testament

Jesus earlier in a sermon talked about a house built on a rock, “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matthew 7:24, ESV). Jesus also talks about the cornerstone, the stone the builders rejected, referring to himself and the message of the Gospel (Mt 21:42, Mk 12:10, Lk 20:17). Jesus takes this from Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 28:16 both of these verses talk about putting ones trust in this cornerstone for salvation.

     Open to me the gates of 
     righteousness, 
          that I may enter through 
            them 
          and give thanks to the 
            LORD. 
     This is the gate of the LORD; 
          the righteous shall 
          enter through it. 
     I thank you that you have 
     answered me 
         and have become my 
          salvation. 
     The stone that the builders 
     rejected 
         has become the 
          cornerstone. 
     This is the LORD’s doing; 
         it is marvelous in our 
          eyes. 
     This is the day that the LORD 
     has made; 
          let us rejoice and be 
          glad in it. 
       (Psalm 118:19–24, ESV) 

Therefore this is what the Lord GOD says: “Behold, I am laying a stone in Zion, a tested stone, A precious cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. The one who believes in it will not be disturbed. (Isaiah 28:16, NASB)

Paul’s use of these terms

Paul also uses these symbols in relationship to the Jesus and the foundational teaching of the Gospel. In his letter to the Ephesians he writes,

And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:17–22, ESV)

Paul also writes to the Corinthians, making it clear that, “no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). He later tells the Ephesians, “grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love” (4:15-16, ESV). Paul warns the Galatians, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ” (Galatians 1:6,7, ESV). Paul makes it clear that this distinction and honor does not fall on Peter, “So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future – all are yours, and you are Christ’s and Christ is God’s” (1 Corinthians 3:21-23, ESV).

Paul also makes it clear that it is by our confession and belief in Jesus that the church is built. In Romans 9:32-33, he summarizes these two passages in Isaiah

And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.” (Isaiah 8:14-15, ESV)

therefore thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: ‘Whoever believes will not be in haste.’ (Isaiah 28:16, ESV)

This is how he understand the meaning of these passages,

Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” (Romans 9:32-33 ESV)

Notice that the distinction for Paul is belief in who Christ is. And it is this belief that Peter is confessing in this passage. When Jesus says on this rock I will build my church, he is referring to Isaiah 28:16, and the true Zion, whose foundation is built on the confession of faith.

It is clear from these Paul’s writing that the rock, the stone, the foundation of the church is Jesus and the teaching of the Gospel, which was given by the apostles, but how did Peter to whom Jesus spoke the words “on this rock I will build my church” see this? As we will see Peter will confirm this understanding and say that we who believe and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God are by this confession built together into the temple of God.

Revelation

 When John describes Jerusalem coming down out of heaven, he describes “the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:14). This is similar to Paul’s description of “of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone”. Notice Peter is not singled out, but instead this refers to the teaching of the apostles as they spread the Gospel throughout the world. The apostles had the unique role of initiating teaching to others the words of Christ as a firsthand account. Both Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant agree that the apostles’ teachings are foundational to the church.

Daniel

Daniel in his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar dream describes a stone,

As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. (Daniel 2:34–35, ESV)

It is clear that this stone that becomes a mountain is the Kingdom of God, or the church, as it spreads, and the message of the Gospel conquers the hearts of men throughout the whole world. This dream emphasizes the fact that this stone was cut out by no hand, or no human. Paul also describes, “For we know if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” (2 Corinthians 5:1, ESV).

The writer of Hebrews describes this mountain,

For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.

(Hebrews 12:18–29, ESV)

Peter’s understanding of the rock

So who or what did Peter believe “this rock” to be? Peter is the one to whom Jesus is talking to when he says, “this rock”, and therefore has some authority in interpreting Jesus’ words and defining what Jesus meant by this phrase. So how does he use this symbology. In Acts 4:11, Peter clarifies who the cornerstone is, “This Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ Salvation exists in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved”. This statement is similar to when Peter says to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the son of the Living God.” When Peter made this declaration, he is declaring Jesus to be the foundation and the one by whom we are saved. Elsewhere when Jesus asks his disciples if they too will leave him as many others had, Peter responds, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68,69). Peter understood who the foundation of the church was.

In Peter’s first letter in the Bible, he writes,

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:

     “Behold, I am laying in 
     Zion a stone, 
          a cornerstone chosen 
          and precious, 
     and whoever believes in 
     him will not be put to 
       shame.” 
     So the honor is for you 
     who believe, but for those 
     who do not believe, 
     “The stone that the 
     builders rejected 
          has become the 
          cornerstone,” 
     and 
     “A stone of stumbling, 
         and a rock of 
          offense.” 

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

(1 Peter 2:4–10, ESV)

It is clear that Peter understood that the church was built on and centered on Jesus and the teaching of the Gospel and it is on this foundation alone that we as living stones are being built into the temple of God.

Next . . .

               In coming posts, we will explore how the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” and Jesus’ comment about the “gates of hell” fit in with the theme of the Gospel being preached to the world, further confirming that this is what Jesus meant by the “rock” and that this passage centers around Peter’s confession.

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.  (Matthew 16:13–20, ESV)

The focal point

These verses have caused a lot of tension among the Catholics and Protestants. The Catholics believe that this verse signifies the affirmation of Jesus for the pope and the Catholic structure, Peter being the first of the popes, and through this structure the church expands into the world. Protestants do not believe that this verse separates Peter as a pope-like figure, but instead displays the power of the proclamation of the Gospel as it ushers in the Kingdom of God and conquers the kingdom of this world. So, does this refer to Peter to whom Jesus said, “Feed my sheep” or to the one Peter calls the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls? Or perhaps both?

Whatever conclusion we come to on what Jesus says here must all come together to describe and focus in on that conclusion. The rock, the gates of hell not prevailing against it, the keys of the kingdom, and the binding and loosing all describe and surround one focal point.

After this, Jesus then goes on to speak of his death, his resurrection, and his second coming and the need for us to die to ourselves. These things too are related. And all this is surrounds and centers in on two confessions – Peter’s confession and God the Father’s confession of who Jesus is.

When Peter gives his confession, they are near Mount Herman. Six days later, after Peter gives his famous confession near the foot of Mount Hermon, we are brought to the top of a mountain, where we find once again Peter is with Jesus and we once again hear another confession, this time from God, the Father, “This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” (Matthew 17:5). Both confessions speak to who Jesus is as the son of God and the Christ.

When Peter has just declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, Jesus takes hold of what Peter has said. What Jesus goes on to say next centers on this confession. And so, whatever our understanding of what is being said, the conclusion must center around this proclamation. And as we explore the depths of these description in this series, we will find a glorious and beautiful picture of a Church whose foundation stands on this confession of Peter and the wonderous story of the Gospel breaking through to the world and of conquering love.

Things go bump in the night

As a child, you may have woken up in the middle of the night with darkness all around you, and as the shadows creep into your imagination, you cry out in fear. . . .

Soon, you are held by loving arms that comfort you with their voice. But what if those comforting arms and voice never came. . . .

How can this be?

Many have wrestled with the idea of the “hiddenness” of God. This struggle is more than just an intellectual proposition. It bores its way deeply into our hearts and our understanding of love. If God is perfectly loving, why does he not make himself clearly known? Has he left us in the dark? No loving parent would leave their child in the dark. If God is loving, why does he not make his presence clearly and definitively known? If you love someone and want them to come to you, you don’t hide yourself. How crazy is that? More importantly, if we must know God in order to be saved, and not knowing him means experiencing his wrath, why does God hide himself? And if God is all-powerful, why does he not just make it happen? If he wanted to make himself known all he would have to do is just show up and say, “Hi” or make himself known clearly in some other way. Wouldn’t it be solved if He could just make himself known to everyone on earth? We would all believe. And everything would be great. Problem solved.

But more importantly, many struggle with the fact that they feel like God, if he exists has not revealed himself personally to them. The evidence against God’s existence is so overwhelming, they do not know how to tenably hold on to the idea of a God. Many also feel that despite seeking answers from God, they haven’t received any. They feel like if God does exist, then it is his fault that they don’t believe in him. After all, if God is loving and all-powerful, he ought to be able to make himself known with clarity to me. And what about the rest of humanity? We cannot know God unless he reveals himself, so he is the one responsible for making himself known, not us. Many who have asked this question find it difficult to see how God, if he exists, is loving, just, fair, or good. For if knowing him is so vital and necessary for our salvation, then why would he hide? We ought to wrestle with questions like these and not run away or hide from them. I have had sleepless nights struggling with questions like this. And it is in this wrestling between my own questions and the two-edged sword of the word that has grown and refined my faith as I come to see the beauty and wonder of the face of God more clearly.

We will find that there is more to the story and that God indeed does come wrapping his arms around us, but there are those who reject his love because they have come to love the shadows. And in loving the shadows, they have become the things that go bump in the night. When the father comes, he destroys the shadows and the things that go bump in the night to comfort his children. And so, having become the things that go bump in the night, they shrink back and hide from the father.

Before we discuss the hiddenness of God, I first want you to put a picture in your mind of Jesus weeping. Why is he weeping?

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling! (Luke 13:34)

And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.” (Luke 19:41-44)

In the passages of Mark, Luke, and John it is clear that the stone was rolled away before the women arrived at the tomb . . .

When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?”

(Mark 16:1-3, ESV)

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

(Luke 24:1-3, ESV)

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

(John 20:1,ESV)

Matthew, however, tells the story a little differently,

[1] Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. [2] And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. [3] His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. [4] And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. [5] But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. [6] He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.

(Matthew 28:1-6, ESV)

Some have taken Matthew’s account and have assumed that it describes the women having been present while the stone was rolled away. However, nowhere in Matthew’s account does it clearly say that the stone was closed when the women arrived at the tomb or that the women were present and saw the stone rolled away. It is likely the stone was rolled away at Jesus’ resurrection, which clearly had already happened before the women arrived since Jesus’ body was not there.

The Greek participle γάρ is often used when providing an explanation for something. Here it seems to be explaining the cause of the earthquake. “Descended” is also in the aorist participle, which allows it to be read as “had descended”. This allows verses 2-5 to be read as a parenthesized account (a common literary device at this time), put in to explain the earthquake. This is further emphasized by the fact that when Matthew picks up the story of the women again, he contrasts the angels effect on the soldiers and their fear to the angel’s effect on the women, “Do not be afraid”. He purposefully goes back to tell what happened before the women arrived at the tomb not only to explain the earthquake but also to provide this stark contrast between the effect of the angel on the guards and the women. It is a beautiful and effective literary device that wouldn’t work if he told the story in absolute chronological order.

A legitimate understanding of this passage, if you include the grammar and the literary devices Mathew uses, could be:

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, [on the way] there was a great earthquake, ([This earthquake occurred] because an angel of the Lord had descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.) In contrast [to the guards, when the women arrived] the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.”

It is also important to note that it appears that Matthew got the story from at least two sources and is combining those accounts here. Verses 2-5 appear to be an account of one of the guards, who described the events of the stone being rolled away, for we see later Matthew giving an account of the guards meeting with the Jewish leaders. This account could be from the guard or one of the Jewish leaders, or someone present at the meeting who heard the guard’s account firsthand. Either way, this description is specific to that time when the guards were present, and the stone was rolled away and does not necessarily describe, for example, the position of the angels at the time of the women’s arrival. We cannot read the Gospel accounts as if no one ever moves and they were just a panorama and static. No, the events of the Gospel were dynamic, and they describe people being in different places within the account. And this is what you would expect to see if multiple witnesses were giving their account of an event, emphasizing the things that stood out specifically to them, providing further evidence that the Gospels are indeed based on eyewitness accounts.

• Was the tomb opened or closed when the women arrived? | Is Jesus Alive?
• Bible Contradiction? Was the tomb opened or closed when the women arrived? | The Domain for Truth (wordpress.com)

“And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

(Deuteronomy 21:22–23, ESV)

According to the law of Moses, if they did not “bury him the same day”, the land would have been defiled. They might not have cared about a man on a cross, but they cared about not defiling their land and would have obeyed this law. It was Roman policy to be respectful of local customs whenever it was reasonable, and this custom was most likely upheld. And the evidence does support that it was. There is evidence of crucified victims being buried in the area as well as writing to support this. Could he have been buried in a mass grave that was just covered up? This is also unlikely giving the care given to burial customs. Josephus wrote, “The Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors (criminals) who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset”(Jewish Wars 4.5.2; cf. Ant. 4.265). “We must furnish fire, water, food to all who ask for them, point out the road, not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration even to declared enemies” (Against Apion 2.211, cf. 2.204). The Temple Scroll among those writings found at Qumran calls for the burial of crucified victims (DSS: 11QT 64:7-13a, 4Q524 frag. 14, lines 2-4). This “care” on how bodies were buried makes it unlikely that they were buried in a mass grave. Could he have been buried in an unmarked grave? It doesn’t matter if there were eyewitnesses to his burial, they would have been able to come back to the spot. Added to this, there is archeological evidence that crucifixion victims were buried in tombs, even with the name written on the ossuary dating to 20s CE. Because of the evidence, we can confidently say that the idea of Jesus being placed in a tomb after his crucifixion is not outlandish but is instead expected.

As far as I know, there are no early accounts of this objection. If it were true, you would expect this to be a common argument against the resurrection from the very beginning, especially among the Jews. After all, it is a more plausible explanation than “the disciples stole the body”. It would be hard to believe that the disciples could have taken down or bribed well-trained Roman soldiers. And it is hard to believe any, let alone all, of these Roman soldiers would have fallen asleep considering the consequences for doing so. “The disciples stole the body” is a pretty poor excuse, especially if they had the option of saying that Jesus’ body was lost in a mass grave. It is way more believable that dogs and carrion came and ate the body, or that the body had been lost in a pile of bodies. The Jewish leaders were smarter than that and would have used this excuse if they could. Even if they were unaware of the events at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, as Christianity grew and became more of a problem for them, this would have been a reasonable objection for them to bring up, even if it was years after the event. If we can think of it, they would have especially having been more aware of what happened with the bodies after crucifixion. But you do not see this objection raised by people who were closer and more aware of the customs of the time. Instead, from what I can tell, this is a recent argument against the resurrection.

Based on the evidence, it is likely that Jesus was put in a tomb. Ironically, in a backhanded way, this claim has produced additional evidence for the empty tomb. If it were a viable objection, you would expect it to be raised early and held on to throughout history. But it is not. It is most likely that this objection was not raised, because it was well known that this was not the custom and that crucified victims were buried. We don’t see objections to his burial, only to his resurrection.

Information on evidence for burial after crucification below:

• Burial of Jesus: Supposed Biblical Error #15 – YouTube
• Matthew 28:11-15 — Matt Whitman and The Ten Minute Bible Hour (thetmbh.com)
  • Episode 0785, 0786
• Refutting the no tomb theory, the idea that Jesus was not burried in a private tomb but a mass grave. (doxa.ws)
• Is it likely that Jesus’ body was not buried? | Questions.org

What motivated the guards to spread the rumor?

It has been argued that the Roman guards would not have spread the rumor that they had fallen asleep while Jesus’ disciples stole the body, because the punishment for both offenses would have been severe. However, if the resurrection is true, the actions described in Matthew’s account are the actions we would expect from these soldiers, given the situation.

The tomb had been officially sealed. And the guards’ sole purpose for being at the tomb for three days was to make sure that the seal was not broken and that the body remained in the tomb. But now the body was gone, the seal was broken. They might keep silent, but there would have been no way to cover up their failure. If a report was to get back to Pilate, if he sent someone to investigate, there would be nobody to find. They could go to Pilate and give him a report, but either way, this would have been a clear case of the soldiers being negligent in their duties. It was not in the guards’ best interest to go to report to Pilate or simply be silent; they had failed in their duties and would have been at risk for a severe punishment or possibly death. This being the case, it makes sense that they would instead go to the chief priests to find an ally either to corroborate their story with Pilate or help them get out of it and conceal their failure. After all, the Jewish leaders clearly had a stake in the outcome of this event. On hearing their story, the chief priests and elders also did not want Pilate to get a report of this. They did not want this story to get out. This tale would provide fodder for the claims that Jesus was the Messiah, and “the last fraud [would] be worse than the first”. The Jewish leaders were not able to provide an unsealed tomb or a body, so they needed an explanation. In collaboration, they decided to promote the rumor that Jesus’ disciples stole the body.  Since only the guards and the Jewish leaders knew what happened and the three days had passed that the guards were to keep the tomb sealed, Pilate would have no reason to assume anything had happened, if both the guards and the Jewish leaders kept silent. The only concern would be if the rumor reached Pilate’s ears. Keep in mind, they did not ask the Roman guards to publicly announce this but to tell it to people in a way that would start a rumor, in a way that might not even reach Pilate’s ears. If it did reach Pilate’s ears, the Jewish leaders would spin another story that would validate the soldier’s integrity. The Roman guards didn’t have a lot of options, they could report to Pilate for certain punishment, or they could go along with the Jewish leaders demands and have them help protect them. They were also being paid a lot of money, which alone could have been enough incentive to spread a rumor, especially where the leaders have agreed to protect you. They may have simply seen the money as being worth the risk. The behavior of the Roman guards is not surprising if you take into account the context.

                There are some who look at the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts and after a casual reading of the accounts assume that they are in conflict with each other.

Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. (Acts 9:3–8, ESV)

“As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ And since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus. (Acts 22:6–11, ESV)

“In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. (Acts 26:12–18, ESV)

They say because these accounts differ with one account having the men standing, another them falling, one them hearing, another them not hearing, and one them seeing, another them not seeing that these accounts must be contradictory with these multiple discrepancies. However, these discrepancies are only there if the texts are read casually, and proper scholarship is ignored.  

Errors in looking at the accounts of Paul’s conversion

When the Gospel writers were writing their accounts paper was a limited resource. They were limited in the words they could write. Because of this, writing wasn’t an exhaustive play-by-play description of the event. Instead, their writing took as if it were snapshots of a movie. They were also more concerned with the accurate gist of the story rather than a detailed account of an event. For example, for a speech, you won’t necessarily get a word-by-word account, but you will get the heart of the message. They were also translating all this into Greek, so catching the heart of the message was key. When we see slight differences in the gospel it is because they are taking different gist snapshots of the story. Yet some read the accounts and think these gist snapshots are the movie. The characters and scenes and events are not like mannequins in a shopping window. Yet we treat these stories that way. And when you see the Gospels this way, you will see errors where there are none. It is the same with those who presume the accounts of Paul’s conversion are in contradiction.

Another error is assuming language is wooden and a word must mean the exact same thing everywhere. This is not how linguistics and literature work. One word can have a dynamic range of meanings which we ascertain by looking at the context. A word can mean one thing in one place and something else in another.

Another error is assuming Luke is a fool. Luke is known for his accuracy, and we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. To assume that he was unaware of any differences in his accounts is assuming we are more observant than Luke. Luke a companion with Paul would have been familiar with Paul’s account. It would be unlikely for him to make the mistakes that people claim, especially when the descriptions he gave fit well with what we would expect to have taken place.

Also, the fact must be dealt with that an author is less likely to contradict himself in a short book. If it is longer, a little more likely. If writing another book, then a little more likely. If the two books are several years apart, a little more likely. If written by two different authors then more likely. The point being Luke contradicting himself in the book of Acts is unlikely and it is in the prerogative of those who believe there is a contradiction to provide definitive evidence for if there is a good explanation for the differences then that explanation is more likely to be true than believing Luke contradicted himself.

Seeing/not seeing

                Acts 22 states that the men saw a light and Acts 9 states that the men saw no one. A light and a person are not the same things. Together this just tells us that the men saw the light but did not see anyone. There is no contradiction. The fact that this is used to support the case that these accounts are in conflict demonstrates the poor scholarship of those who take this position. A scholar does not present false evidence to support their claim. The fact that some feel the need to do so only makes them look foolish. Act 26 helps to bring Acts 9 and Acts 22 together. Acts 26:13 says, “I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me” inferring again that all the men and Paul saw the light. But in 26:19 Jesus says, “But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you”. “You” here is singular referring to only Paul. So, Jesus confirms that only Paul could see him. Other verses confirm that Paul saw Jesus (Acts 9:27, 22:14, and 26:16).

Hearing/not hearing

                Another error in their scholarship is the failure to understand how language works. They look at these accounts and claim that in Acts 9 the men heard Jesus’ words, but in Acts 22 they did not hear Jesus’ words. The word used in both of these passages is a form of “ἀκούω” which can mean either to hear or to understand. It can be used in much the same way as when someone is talking to me and I hear the noise but don’t understand them and say, “Sorry, I didn’t hear you.” Or if someone is whispering and we say, “Sorry, I can’t hear you”. Or when someone spaces out or simply wants to clarify if someone understood, we might say “Did you hear me?” Language is dynamic with a semantic range and not wooden it is in the context of the story that we understand its meaning. In other passages we see “ἀκούω” being used in these two distinct ways. It is used to mean the process of hearing in Matthew 13;16 and 2 Timothy 2:2. It is used to mean understanding in Matthew 11:15, 1 Corinthians 14:2, and in Galatians 4:21. Since we use the word “hear” this way, it should be no surprise that Luke does the same. Also, in Acts 22 Luke is translating Aramaic into Greek and used the Greek word he saw as a natural translation.

Also, the term for “voice” in these passages is a form of “φωνή” which can refer to a voice or sound, depending on the context. In other passages we see “φωνή” being used this way. It is used to refer to a voice in John 5:25, John 10:4, and in Luke 17:15. It is used to refer to an indistinct sound or noise in 1 Corinthians 4:7 and Revelation 14:2.

The purpose and context of Acts 9 and 22 are different with different emphases. To further confirm that Paul meant “understanding” in his Acts 22 speech, he says in Acts 22:14, “And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth;” (Acts 22:14, ESV). He is telling the account to juxtapose the fact that just as the men heard the voice but did not understand, so too the Jews have heard the voice of God and have seen the light but have not understood. Not only in these two places but throughout his speech Paul uses “ἀκούω” both to mean the process of hearing (vs. 2, 22), and the process of understanding (vs. 1, 7, 9, 14, 15, 26) and demonstrates that there is a difference between the two. Paul understood the message, the Jews though hearing have not understood. In just one speech it is clear that Paul uses “ἀκούω” in these two ways. Paul’s speech would not make sense and would sound ridiculous if you try to apply a wooden semantic definition for “ἀκούω” throughout his speech. Paul is emphasizing what Jesus told him, “they will not accept your testimony about me”.  Obviously, since it is clear that “ἀκούω” is used in this manner, there is no problem with listening to or reading Acts 9 and Act 22 and understanding that they are doing the same.  

Those who insist on a wooden semantic don’t understand how language works and ignore how Paul is using the term in his speech. Also, they have to claim that Luke who is careful in his writings was careless. What makes more sense is that those insisting that this is a contradiction are the ones who are being careless.

Standing/falling

                It is claimed that Acts 9 states that the men were standing and Acts 26 states that they had fallen, and both cannot be true. Really? Are the men mannequins in a store window who are frozen in time? Surely not. This view of these passages is quite silly. In the account of the group of men coming to arrest Jesus in the garden, we get this description in John,

So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.”  (John 18:3–8, ESV)

In this account, the men fell and since they arrested Jesus, they got back up to do so. The description of these men falling does not mean that they had permanently fallen or had stayed fallen through the whole scene. The men did indeed fall but got back up and were standing by the time Jesus finished talking with Paul.  

How these accounts fit together

                On Paul’s way to Damascus, all of the sudden a bright light appears. Either before or as Jesus starts speaking all present fell to the ground. The men with Paul saw the light and heard a noise but did not understand the voice nor saw a man. Not seeing Jesus and not hearing what he was saying they stood baffled and trying to figure out what was occurring. Paul having seen Jesus and hearing what Jesus said did what most do in that situation. He remained on the ground. After Jesus finished speaking with Paul was blind. Notice Acts 26:16 says that all the men fell, but in verse 19 Jesus tells Paul alone to stand because the other men were already standing, “But rise and stand upon your feet.” When Paul moved to stand, the men who were already standing nearby were able to come to him quickly and help him to his feet and led him to Damascus.

Articles to read/Videos to watch:

• Saul of Tarsus / the Apostle Paul’s Conversion in Acts – YouTube
• Heard but Not Understood? and Differing Views of Biblical Inerrancy | Robert M Bowman Jr. – Academia.edu
• Did They Hear a Voice or Not? – Peter Goeman
• φωνή | Page 2 | billmounce.com
• The Meaning of Act account of Paul’s conversion Explained (scripturespeaks.org)

An objection to the historical accuracy of Matthew’s account of Jesus’s birth is that there are no historical records outside the Bible of Herod killing infant sons in the city of Bethlehem. However, though this is a valid question, this is not proof that the account in Matthew did not happen.

Bethlehem as prophesied in Micah 5:2 was a small village with a small population at the time of Jesus’ birth. The population is estimated to have been around 300-1500, the number of boys under two years in a population this size would not be that many, some estimates being around 7-50, and this in a time where young children died at young ages more often than they do now. If Herod wanted to hide this by threatening families to silence it may have not been widely known. Josephus also was writing with a Greco-Roman culture in mind where infanticide was a form of birth control, he may have thought that it would have seemed insignificant to his audience and therefore did not include it. (Paul L. Maier, 1998:179) We also know that Josephus did not write an exhaustive list of Herod’s atrocities and this one would not be surprising for him to have left out, since it probably would not have mattered much to his audience.

We however know that this event is well within Herod’s personality. Herod violently reacting to a rumor over the threat to his throne was a pattern. We also know that in the last four years of his life when this event is claimed to have occurred, he was at his worst. It is an event that fits well with his character at the time. In the article The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical Fact or Legendary Fiction? it states:

In 1988 I was attending a lecture at the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies by Dr. Isaiah Gafni, a leading authority on the Second Temple period at the Hebrew University. His topic was the life of Herod the Great. Sitting next to me was Dr. Bruce Narramore, a Christian psychologist from Biola University.

Dr. Gafni recounted a seminar that was held at Hebrew University a few years before. Attending it were historians and archaeologists of the Second Temple period as well as psychiatrists and psychologists. They laid out (figuratively speaking) Herod the Great on the psychiatric couch and preceded to psychoanalyze him. The historians explained a recurring pattern in the life of Herod. He would hear a rumor that somebody was going to bump him off and take over his throne, but Herod would kill that person first. He would then go into depression. After awhile he would come out of his depression and would build, build, build. He would hear another rumor and would kill that person, then go into another depression. After awhile he would come out of this depression and would build, build, build. This cycle repeated itself a number of times in which numerous people were killed, including one of his ten wives as well as three of his sons! The shrinks diagnosed Herod the Great as a paranoid schizophrenic.

After the lecture I turned to Dr. Narramore and asked his analysis of Herod: “Well, do you think he was a paranoid schizophrenic?” Bruce laughed and said, “No, he was a jerk!” [That is a direct quote!]. Recently a historical / psychological analysis was done on Herod the Great and he was diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder (Kasher and Witztum 2007:431).

The time before Herod’s death was full of uncertainty about who would inherit his kingdom and uncertainty about his status within the Roman empire. It was also a time of unrest with “messiahs” rising up and unrest and rebellion. So, for a man who did not want the eye of the empire on him and already was paranoid about being usurped, the news the Magi brought him that the king of the Jews had been born would have been disturbing. Not only would it have been disturbing to him, but also to Jerusalem which had already experienced his reactions to rumors of another king rising not in his line. Herod around this time killed Pharisees who had prophesied that Herod’s line would decline and the line of Pheroras would rise after Pheroras’ wife paid a fine placed on the Pharisees. So, we have a time when anticipation for the Messiah was high, there was instability in Herod’s own house, there was tension for Herod to please Rome, and Jerusalem had already seen how Herod had responded to potential threats to his kingdom. So, it is no wonder that Matthew used the word “troubled” to describe the mood when this news was brought to Herod. Herod would not only want to kill these infants who he saw as a potential threat to his throne but seeing that the rumor extended outside his court would also want to squash any rumors of a possible king of the Jews.  We know historically that fear can be a powerful motivation in keeping people silent. Even without any interference, there would be fear to talk about another king, not in Herod’s line. Squashing the rumor would not be out of the realm of possibility.

The story would however have been known to Jesus and his family. Both Jesus and his family walked intimately with those who would become the church and would have been asked to tell their story. Thus, this becoming common knowledge in the church would be expected. And through the church, this event became common knowledge to the world. Since this story came early in church history, those that were still alive would have been able to discredit it if it were not true. And even after this, those who had known the family of Jesus and had heard the stories firsthand would have been able to discredit the story. Yet you see no early writing questioning this account. But then I would suppose this would be an argument from silence, which cannot be used to discredit this story.

It might be argued that Matthew made up the story to fit it into prophecy. But why would he need to do that? His gospel alludes to many prophesies already, and there are other prophesies he did not include that he could have used. Matthew’s account is not an exhaustive study of how Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies. Why add a made-up story when it would not be necessary? And if you are going to make up a story, why add in the Magi? Magi would have been controversial. They weren’t just “wise men” for the word magi refer to people who practice magic or astrology, something contrary to the Jewish culture. If the Jewish scribes were able to ascertain the place of the messiah’s birth, why have a heathen magi come and determine the timing of the birth? Many of the day were already anticipating that the messiah was near. Why not use a wise Jew, after all, Jesus said that the scribes and Pharisees ought to have understood the signs of the time? Why not use Simeon and Anna who were aware of the coming birth of Jesus, and even proclaimed it to others? Why not have Herod hear these rumors after Anna and Simeon told others and then . . .?

The silence found in history is not proof that it didn’t happen, it is a question to be addressed, but not proof. Anyone purporting it to be such is claiming to know more than reason can allow. Claiming it as proof creates its own questions that have to be ignored in order to hold on to that stance as absolute fact. The argument of silence has been used many times before only later to find evidence to validate the Biblical account. I am not saying that the argument of silence cannot ever be used, but it must be used carefully. It is within reason and probable for the story to come out and to have been told in history the way it did through the gospel of Matthew. Therefore, there is no proof whatsoever that this account is false or a contradiction in the Bible.

Video to watch:

• Matthew Didn’t Invent the Massacre of the Innocents – YouTube
• Refuting Biblical Arguments from Silence – YouTube

Mark and John seem to give two different hours for the death of Jesus.

“And it was the third hour when they crucified him.” (Mark 15:25)

“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. Pilot said to the Jews, ‘Behold your King!’” (John 19:14)

The Jews broke up the twelve-hour night into four watches from sunset to sunrise each lasting about three hours. We see this idea possibly in Mark 13:35-36, “Therefore stay awake – for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning – lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.” Likewise, during the daytime, the twelve hours (“Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9)) were broken into four periods. When stating times in the Gospels, we see that they generalized those times to these three-hour periods of the day and spoke of the “third”, “sixth”, and “ninth” hours (Matt. 20:3, 5; 27:45, 46; Mark 15:33, 34; Luke 23:44; Acts 2:15; 3:1; 10:3,9, 30; 23:23). Mark says Jesus’ crucifixion occurred in the third hour. John says, it was “about the sixth hour” which could mean it was coming up or approaching on the sixth hour, meaning Jesus’ crucifixion probably occurred near the end of the third hour quarter of day, so during the transition from the third hour quarter and the sixth hour quarter. Each of these accounts rounding off to on or the other quarter of the day and are consistent with how one spoke of time. These statements also help us to narrow down when Jesus died to the latter part of the third hour.

In the previous article we tackle whether or not John agrees with the synoptic Gospels on the day of Jesus’ death: The day of Jesus’ death

Articles to read:

• You Asked: What Time Did Jesus Die? (thegospelcoalition.org)
• Is there a Bible contradiction in Mark 15:25 (cf. John 19:14)? (defendinginerrancy.com)
• When was Jesus Crucified: Supposed Bible Contradiction #21 – YouTube

                The question arises, did Jesus eat the Passover meal and as a consequence what day of the Passover week did Jesus die? The Synoptic Gospels speak of Jesus eating the Passover with his disciples on the day the Passover Lamb was sacrificed

“And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb” (Mark 14:12)

“Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed” (Luke 22:7)

“Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” (Matthew 26:17)

However some have claimed that John gives a different account, implying that instead of eating the Passover meal on the day the Passover Lamb was sacrificed, Jesus ate the meal the day before and died when the Passover Lamb was sacrificed. Below are the passages they use to support this claim.

“Now before the Feast of Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.” (John 13:1)

“It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.” (John 18:28)

“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour.” (John 19:14)

Can John be reconciled with the Synoptic Gospels? We will look at John’s account to determine whether John is claiming that Jesus died at the same time as the Passover lamb. Is the claim of a contradiction valid?

The Day of Preparation

                Both John and the Synoptic Gospels record that Jesus died on the day of Preparation before the Sabbath. They also agree that the day before Jesus’s death, Jesus ate his last meal with his disciples in the upper room and in between these they were on the Mount of Olives where Jesus was arrested and taken trial and brought before Pilot to be crucified.

“And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.” (Mark 15:42)

“It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning.” (Luke 23:54)

”The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, ‘Sir, we remember how that imposter said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise’.” (Matthew 27:62-63)

“Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day),” (John 19:31)

“So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.” (John 19:42)

We can see that there is not discrepancy on what day of the week Jesus died and was buried. Each of the Gospel’s states that this occurred on the day of Preparation before the Sabbath.

The term “Passover” is used to refer to the whole week of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So in order to know what part of this week “Passover” is referring to one must look at the context. Below are examples of “Passover” referring to the whole week.

“The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem” (John 2:13)

“Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews was at hand” (John 6:14)

“many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves.” (John 11:55)

Intune with this, the phrase “the day of Preparation” refers to the day before the Sabbath. When John states, “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover.” He is not talking about the day when the Passover lamb was slain, but the day before the Sabbath, or “the day of Preparation” during the Passover week. Notice John highlights the Sabbath as a “high day”, also emphasizing its occurrence during the Passover. So each of the Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation.

We can further provide support that this is the case because John records, “It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.” Now if this was the day the Passover lamb was slain there would not be a problem since they could have bathed and at evening, they would have been ritually clean and could have participated in the Passover meal (Leviticus 11:24-28; 15:5-11; 17:15; 19:7-8). They would have been able to participate even if they had entered Pilot’s court. But is there a meal before evening that they would have wanted to remain clean for? And does that give us a clue to the day John record’s Jesus’ death? After the Passover lamb was slain and the Seder meal was eaten in the evening and night, during the day there was another meal that was part of the Passover celebration called the Hagigah, which occurred the midday after the Seder. It appears this is what John was referring to and if so John, like the Synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day after the Passover. And this makes sense because John does not explicitly try to synchronize the death of Jesus with the slaying of the Passover lamb as some have claimed. John who loves symbolism probably would not have been shy to have done so, if these two events occurred simultaneously. So the synoptic Gospels and John all agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation which was after the Passover lamb was slain.

John 13:1

                So, some will question, but John says that Jesus had the last meal before the Feast of Passover? Did he? Since it is clear that all four Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation, lets now look at John 13:1 and the phrase, “Now before the Feast of Passover”. This phrase is qualified by “when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world, he loved them to the end.” The Passover marked the beginning of the last hours of Jesus’ life.  John is stating that before this very moment of time as Jesus knew his death was approaching, that he was about to have his last meal with his disciples, he did not panic, but loved and fully gave of himself to his disciples till the very end. Notice this includes Judas. John is emphasizing that though Jesus knew what would soon take place, even though he knew this would be his last meal with his disciples, his focus was love. And he continues to model that love as in verse 2, as we have a transition, “During supper”, referring to the Seder meal. The final acts before his death had begun. In order to express his love, during the supper, Jesus knowing who he was and having loved his own, humbled himself and took on himself the role of a servant, in contrast to those who around him who were arguing who was the greatest. There is no reason to assume that this “supper” is not the Passover meal. John 13:1 states that Jesus had loved them before this meal, John 13:2 states that love for them continued as Jesus continued to serve and be focused on caring for his disciples, rather than caring for his own needs, despite knowing the suffering he was about to endure. And based on the evidence already given, this is the reading that makes the most sense. The synoptic Gospels and John are telling the same story and give the same timing for Jesus’ death. In the next article we will look at whether the Gospels of Mark and John agree on the hour of Jesus’ death: The Hour of Jesus’ Death

Articles to read:

• The Timing of Jesus’ Death | Catholic Answers
• What Day Did Jesus die? – Bible Contradiction #20 – YouTube