When Jesus and his disciples met a blind beggar, as they were leaving the Temple, some of them asked Jesus, if the reason for his being born blind was for his sins or his parents (John 9:1-2). Their question presents a problem on two counts. First, if the disciples question concerns a sin committed by the man prior to his birth, where did this idea come from, since Jews didn’t believe in the transmigration of souls? That’s a Hindu doctrine. Nevertheless, there are some who believe there is evidence in Josephus that Jews tinkered with the idea. However, a closer look reveals Josephus had resurrection in mind, not reincarnation or the transmigration of souls, and resurrection was only for the righteous. So, it is difficult to understand what Jesus’ disciples referred to, if they thought the blind man’s condition was due to his own sins. Perhaps their question was phrased in a manner that expected a negative answer, because the thought was ridiculous, but this is only a guess. Read the rest of this entry »
After the Jewish authorities had shown that they simply didn’t want to listen, and no proof would be sufficient for them to accept him as their Messiah, Jesus told them he would go his way, and they would die in their sins (John 8:21). In other words, although he came to save mankind (John 3:16), and that salvation is obtainable at any time upon one’s repentance, the salvation of the nation was available only as long as Jesus was with them, offering himself as their Messiah. After they crucified him, vis-à-vis after he went his way, they would seek him, or put another way, they would seek the promised Messiah to save them, when their nation was threatened, vis-à-vis the Jews’ war with Rome, cir. 66 AD to 70 AD, but they would die in their sins. In other words, the nation and its Temple would be destroyed. Read the rest of this entry »
In chapter five of the Gospel of John the author concludes his discussion with the Jewish authorities by offering five witnesses that logically support Jesus’ claims about himself. Thus, if anyone had any legitimate doubts about who Jesus is or what purpose he had in becoming man, one could put his doubts to rest by considering these five witnesses. To be sure, folks could read chapter five of John’s Gospel and come away not believing Jesus; the Jewish authorities listened, and they didn’t believe. The point is, some folks won’t change their minds no matter what Jesus said or did. Nevertheless, if one’s doubts are legitimate, meaning one is willing to understand the truth and receive it for what it is, rather than seeking to suppress it, so one could live as he chooses, then chapter five is sufficient to enlighten that one’s heart and clear away all doubts one may have about Jesus, and why he came into the world. Read the rest of this entry »
There is an interesting similarity between the man-made-whole in John 5 and ancient Israel living in the wilderness under Moses. Both were immobile for 38 years. In fact, the Feast of Tabernacles, celebrated in the Jews’ 7th month (about our October), commemorates this period through the Jews’ living in tabernacles or tents (temporary dwellings) for seven days or from the 15th to the 21st of the seventh month. There is an eighth day attached to the feast called the Last Great Day, celebrated on the 22nd of the month. Another interesting point can be made between Israel’s immobility under Moses and the Jews’ immobility during the first century AD due to their hesitancy and ultimate rejection of Jesus as Messiah. Read the rest of this entry »
Jesus entered Galilee from Samaria near Cana, where he had performed the first sign mentioned in this Gospel narrative. The healing that took place as a result of what occurs here, is the second sign or miracle that the writer of the fourth Gospel uses to make his point about Jesus being the Messiah (John 4:54; cp. 20:30-31). The account mentions a nobleman, whose son is sick at Capernaum (John 4:46). Who is the nobleman, and is there a connection between John’s narrative here (John 4:46-54) and Luke’s (Luke 7:1-10)? While the events are similar, the actors are different. John mentions a nobleman and his son, and the nobleman is royalty of some kind. In Luke’s account, however, the text mentions only the Roman’s centurion and his beloved servant. Is there a connection, and, if so, how does it all fit together? Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on Who Was the Nobleman in John’s Gospel?
In the third chapter of John, we are introduced to a man, Nicodemus, who is a Pharisee. However, I wonder if this is his name, or if it is a description of a man, whom the Gospel narrator wishes to keep anonymous? The Greek word, Nicodemus (G3530) has essentially the same meaning of those referred to as Nicolaitans (G3531) in Revelation 2:6, 15,[1] and the one called Nicolas (G3532) in Acts 6:5. Each Greek word has the meaning of victory, lord or ruler of the people. The words have a relationship with nikao (G3528), which means to overcome, something the believer in Christ is called to do through the blood of Christ. Indeed, there seems to be a struggle in the world between it and the believer, each seeking to overcome the other, the believer overcoming through Christ, while the world overcomes through intimidation and violence. Read the rest of this entry »
Mark tells us that each Passover Pilate was in the habit of releasing one of the Jewish prisoners to the people, whomsoever they desired (Mark 15:6-8). Literally, the text says: “at a feast he released to them one prisoner” (LITV). Young’s Literal Translation has it: “at every feast…” But, why would an anti-Semitic ruler wish to do such a thing for the folks he hated? Moreover, many critics tell us there was never such a custom done for the Passover or any other Jewish Festival. Yet, that Pilate did have such a custom is witnessed to by each of the Gospel narrators (Matthew 27:15; Luke 23:17; John 18:39), and is referred to in Luke’s second work (Acts 3:14). If the custom were not true, why would each of the Gospel narratives refer to it independently, either briefly or with a few details, and why would it be referred to so early in Acts? Certainly, the narrative of Jesus’ crucifixion doesn’t demand a reference to Barabbas. So, why would the custom be mentioned, if it weren’t true? Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on Releasing Barabbas at the Passover
Pilate is an interesting figure both of history and in the Biblical narratives. Josephus says he replaced Valarius Gratus as governor of Jewish lands, which included Judea and Samaria. Galilee and Idumea were governed by Herod Antipas, and territories north and west of the Sea of Galilee were governed by Herod Philip, so Pilate had no authority over those Jewish areas. Pilate came to his position as governor in Jerusalem without a clear understanding in history as to when he was appointed or who appointed him. Nevertheless, scholars date his tenure of ten years between 26/27 to 36/37AD. He was probably appointed by Sejanus, Tiberius Caesar’s powerful military confidant and head of the Praetorian Guard, who by this time ruled as a virtual emperor in the absence of the semi-retired, Tiberius. Read the rest of this entry »
Some folks had been against Jesus from the very beginning of his ministry and sought to destroy him even then (Matthew 2:13; Mark 3:6; 9:22). However, no group had made an all-out effort to seize him, until late in his three and a half year ministry, after he had raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:45-53). It was for that reason Jesus hid himself from them (John 11:54). Some commentaries consider all the strange things that occurred later were things Jesus was simply able to see due to his prophetic ability.[1] Nevertheless, this seems farfetched and unnecessary to Mark’s account. Rather, a better understanding would be, since the Jewish authorities wanted to seize Jesus at an opportune time, Jesus made certain prearrangements in secret with folks like Martha, who prepared the meal at Jesus’ arrival (John 12:1), or like the donkey that was tied at a particular spot at the gate of a certain town (Mark 11:2-3), or a man bearing a pitcher of water (Mark 14:13). When one knows his enemies desire to kill him, a wise man will take measures to prevent them from being successful (Proverbs 23:19; John 11:53-54, 55-57). Read the rest of this entry »
Mark begins his description of Jesus’ coming, by saying: “But in those days after the tribulation (G2347)…” (Mark 13:24). Matthew’s account has: “Immediately after the tribulation (G2347) of those days…” (Matthew 24:29). When it comes to the Lord’s coming, many folks are willing to jump through hoops, as it were, in order to maintain an understanding they’ve always held, but is denied in the text. The word immediately, for example, loses all meaning in the hands of folks wanting to put Jesus’ coming far into the future. For them, immediately must be understood in the phrase: “one day is as a thousand years…” (cp. 2Pter 3:8),[1] which means what in the context of: “immediately after the tribulation of those days?” The very words we read must take on a different meaning entirely, if we want to support a distant coming of the Lord. Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on Christ’s Coming Ushers in the Unending Gospel Age
I am involved at this time in a study of the Olivet Discourse in my current study series of the Gospel of Mark. Four of Jesus’ disciples came to him, privately, as he sat atop Mount Olives, overlooking the city of Jerusalem and its Temple. They asked him to explain some shocking statements he had made just prior to leaving the city. During Jesus’ preliminary statements leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, he told his disciples they would need to flee Judea once they saw the abomination that would bring desolation (Mark 13:14). Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on Unless the Lord Had Shortened the Days
As Jesus went on in his Olivet Prophecy, he mentioned the abomination of desolation, which was also mentioned by Daniel the prophet (Mark 13:14). Some scholars don’t believe the reference to Daniel is authentic to Mark’s narrative. Nevertheless, the point is moot, because no one objects of its mention in Matthew’s account of the Olivet Prophecy (Matthew 24:15). Therefore, whether or not Mark says Jesus referred to Daniel in the Olivet Prophecy, we may assume he does, because of the mention in Matthew. The greater question, I think, is what did Jesus mean by abomination of desolation? Read the rest of this entry »
Men will always be troubled when disaster strikes, whether the terrible event comes as war or through natural means, such as powerful storms or earthquakes etc. And, such fear and concern are understandable. How can one not be troubled over such things? Yet, when Jesus told his disciples that wars were coming and with them famines and earthquakes, he told them not to be troubled, because such things must come (Mark 13:7-8). What kind of stoic men did Jesus believe his disciples were, that they could be unmoved by such terrible events? Is this what Jesus really meant or had he something else in mind? Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on There Will Be Wars and Threats of War
Mark has Jesus conclude his remarks against the scribes by saying they devour widows’ houses (their inheritance), and all the while offering long, pompous prayers (Mark 12:40). What Jesus had in mind concerned the scribes and Pharisees trading upon their reputations in the community, exalting their own positions. A prominent scribe was often able to gain control of a widow’s inheritance by becoming her wise executor in financial matters. Thus, he was able to exalt his own status at the expense of the widow. Josephus also records such an event in describing how the Pharisees helped King Alexander’s widow, saying: “They had the enjoyment of the royal authority, while the expenses and the difficulties of it belonged to Alexandra…”[1] Thus, did they devour their wealth, and “these”, i.e., the scribes and Pharisees who did these things, would receive the greater judgment from God (Mark 12:40). Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on Hypocrisy, the Widow, and Judgment
Once again Jesus is headed for Jerusalem but this time it would be from Ephraim, not Galilee (Mark 10:32; cp. John 11:54). He had gone up to Jerusalem during the Feast of Dedication (Mark 10:1) and then the Feast of Purim (Mark 10:17), from which he retreated to Bethabara, where John had baptized (John 10:40), because he knew he would need to return to Bethany to raise Lazarus from the dead (cp. John 11:1-7). Now, however, Jesus led his disciples into the coasts of Judea to confront the Jewish authorities. The disciples followed him both out of fear and amazement (Mark 10:32), but why so? Why does Mark phrase, this, Jesus’ final journey to Jerusalem, in such a manner? Read the rest of this entry »
Comments Off on The Crucifixion and False Doctrine
Smoodock's Blog 