Prophets after the fact.

Today is 1 March 2026, the day after the United States and Israel attacked Iran, and reportedly killed Ali Khamenei, its supreme leader. I wrote and posted this before today’s Sunday morning church services in the United States—at which I guarantee prophets are gonna get up and tell us what they believe God told ’em about yesterday’s events, and the future of Iran.

I can also guarantee some of ’em are gonna start talking about all the End Times stuff this war either fulfills, or is gonna trigger. This, despite our Lord Jesus’s own statement to the contrary—

Mark 13.7-8 NET

7“When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. These things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8For nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and there will be famines. These are but the beginning of birth pains.”

—but you know how some Christians follow their End Times timelines instead of the bible. But I digress; I’m talking about prophecy in general, not just the End Times fans.

What you’re gonna see in church today, is what you see in churches after every major disaster. After every war begins, every terrorist attack happens, every horrific fire, every natural disaster like a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, tsunami, anytime bad stuff happens. Immediately certain prophets step forward and declare, “Thus saith the LORD…”

And my response, and really all our responses, should be, “The LORD knew this was coming. Why didn’t he forewarn you? And if he did forewarn you, why did you sit on this information?”

When we deal with legitimate prophets, God should’ve told them what’s coming. Because he does that with the people whom he called to serve him as prophets, to share God’s messages to his people, who legitimately listen to him for this purpose. Exactly like he told Amos of Tekoa to tell the Israelis.

Amos 3.6-8 NET

6If an alarm sounds in a city, do people not fear?

If disaster overtakes a city, is the LORD not responsible?

7Certainly the Sovereign LORD does nothing without first revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.

8A lion has roared! Who is not afraid?

The Sovereign LORD has spoken. Who can refuse to prophesy?

I’ve heard some after-the-fact prophets claim this prophecy totally applies to them—because in some translations, like the KJV, verse 7 doesn’t say “without first revealing his plan.” True, but not every bible translator has understood how to rightly translate Hebrew verbs. The imperfect verb יַעֲשֶׂ֛ה/ya’ašéh means “is doing,” which means we should translate verse 7, “For the Lord YHWH isn’t doing a thing when he’s not revealed his counsel to the prophets his slaves/servants.” God withholds his action till he’s first revealed his intent to his people. This way, people don’t have to guess at how involved God is, or why he did as he did; he already told us. He reveals, then acts.

Any prophet who claims God could act first and reveal second, either doesn’t understand this verse… or doesn’t wanna understand this verse, ’cause now they have to explain why they were not listening to God when he wanted to forewarn us of a coming disaster.

The Lᴏʀᴅ created the heavenly bodies.

Genesis 1.14-19.

In the Genesis 1 creation story, God separated waters below from the waters above, and put a רָקִיעַ/raqíya, “ceiling,” above the waters below, to keep back the waters above. The KJV translates raqíya as “firmament,” a solid object, and the ESV as “expanse,” a not-so-solid object. I say this because today’s Christians are obviously disagreed about what a raqíya is, since we’ve been to space and discovered there’s no such solid object up there. But the ancients and medievals believed it is a solid object—especially since today’s passage of Genesis describes God putting lights in this ceiling.

I know; other bible translations try to fudge exactly what he’s doing because the more literal they are, the less this looks like the actual universe. And as I keep saying, the point of Genesis 1 is not to describe the actual universe. It’s not a science book; it’s a theology book. It’s to emphasize God created everything. Including the lights in the skies.

Genesis 1.14-19 KWL

14God said, “Be, lights in the ceiling of the skies,

to separate between the day and the night,

Be signs for festivals,

and for days and years.

15Be lights in the ceiling of the skies

to light the land.”

It was so.

16God made two great lights:

the great light to rule the day,

and the small light to rule the night and the stars.

17God put them in the ceiling of the skies

to light the land.

God saw how good it was.

19It was dusk, then dawn.

Day four.

Y’might notice the author of Genesis—I’m gonna call him Moe for now—doesn’t use the words for sun and moon. Not because there weren’t any; there totally are. Psalm 104, the creation psalm, mentions them. Ps 104.19 Moe later tells us Joseph dreamed of them. Ge 37.9 These words are שֶׁמֶשׁ/šeméš, “sun,” and יֶרַח/yerákh “moon, month.” So why did Moe instead call them “the great light” and “the small light”? Because to ancient pagans, 𐤔𐤌𐤔/Šamáš, more often spelled Shamash, whom the Sumerians called 𒀭𒌓 /Utu, wasn’t just what you called our sun; it’s the sun god. Likewise 𐤉𐤓𐤇/Yaríkh was the moon god, and a pretty important god in Ugaritic mythology. Moe did not want his readers to think the LORD created these pagan gods; the LORD only created the lights in the sky. “The great light” and “the small light.” Which aren’t gods. Don’t worship them. Dt 4.19, 17.3

Moe also stated God’s intent for their creation: Timekeeping. Other than seconds, which are based on the human heartbeat, or weeks, which are based on… well, this chapter of Genesis, our whole concept of timekeeping is based on the relative position of these lights in the sky. The position of the sun indicates morning, noon, and evening; at what point in the day we are. The phases of the moon indicate at what point in the month we are—and when the Hebrew festivals take place, which are often on full moons. The positions of the stars indicate at what point in the year we are.

What about planets? Well Genesis says nothing about planets. The ancients noticed those—“stars” that move away from their places in the constellations, and started to speculate about what they mean… and came up with astrology. Christians noticed the magi tracked Jesus by following a moving star, and as a result too many Christians began to dabble in astrology. Since God said the lights in the sky were to be signs, some of ’em justified astrology that way. Through it they invented astronomy, and it took a long time before the science finally divorced itself from the superstition. Nowadays some Evangelicals assume astrology has always been forbidden to Christians, and are startled to discover Christian history shows otherwise.

The bible actually has nothing about astrology in it—neither condemning nor endorsing it. Mainly because ancient Hebrews simply didn’t practice it. There’s no point: If the Hebrews wanted know the future, if they wanted to know God’s will, they worshiped a living God. Unlike pagans, their God talked. Why bother to try to deduce stuff from staring at the sky when God will straight-up tell you?

And that’s what Christians should be doing today. Listen to God, then confirm it’s actually God talking. Leave astrology to the pagans who don’t know any better.

Jesus prays at Gethsemane, in 𝘓𝘶𝘬𝘦.

Luke 22.39-46.

Of the three different versions of Jesus praying at Gethsemane found in the synoptic gospels, Luke has the shortest version. Mainly because the other synoptics tell of Jesus praying thrice, but Luke only has him pray once. So he’s not coming back two other times to find his students asleep, wake them, remind them to pray, then go off and pray again.

Plus there’s this odd bit someone inserted about an angel, and sweat pouring off of Jesus in such quantities it’s like he’s bleeding. The story of it was told in the second century, and someone decided to insert it into the gospels in the third—either here in Luke 22.43-44, or right after Matthew 26.39. Preachers love to quote it to claim Jesus was sweating blood—ignoring the word ὡσεὶ/oseí, “like,” which clearly shows it was like blood, not literally blood. But that’s a whole other article.

Anyway once you ignore verses 43-44, which I put in brackets ’cause they were added to the text by the Textus Receptus the Luke passage gets even shorter. A little less intense, actually. Going off to pray three different times makes it sound like Jesus was really wrestling with his request. Praying once doesn’t give you that impression. Maybe that’s why the ancients inserted the bit about Jesus soaking himself in sweat. Well anyway, let’s get to the passage:

Luke 22.39-46 KWL

39Leaving the seder, Jesus goes as usual to Mt. Olivet,

and {his} students go with him.

40Coming to the place, Jesus tells his students,

“Pray to not enter into temptation.”

41Jesus draws away from the students—

like as far as a stone’s throw—

and takes to his knees and is praying,

42saying, “Father, if you¹ will,

take this cup away from me!

Only don’t do my will,

but yours.”

43{A heavenly angel appears to Jesus,

strengthening him.

44Being in agony, Jesus is fervently praying,

and his sweat is becoming like drops of blood,

pouring out onto the ground.}

45Rising from the prayer, coming to the students,

Jesus finds them sleeping from the grief.

46Jesus tells his students, “You’re² sleeping?

Rise up and pray, lest you² come to temptation.”

Because of the uniqueness of verses 43-44, preachers love to quote that bit, and ignore the rest. After all, if you wanna talk about Jesus’s intense spiritual struggle in Gethsemane, you’ve got the Mark and Matthew versions. The only thing Luke appears to offer is this “new” bit of information about an angel strengthening an extremely moist Jesus. Plus centuries of Christian commentators pointing out how very human Jesus’s flop sweat makes him sound. Plus, of course, all the preachers who suck at reading comprehension, and claim he sweat blood.

So for a change let’s not look at that part, and focus on what Luke actually did write.

The Good News Translation.

My very first bible was a King James Version, which I read cover to cover… but didn’t wholly understand, ’cause I was seven and didn’t have the vocabulary. My second bible was one of my mother’s cast-off bibles—a Good News Bible she didn’t use anymore, now that she had a Scofield Reference Bible—and this one I did understand. Because, as should be true of every bible translation, it was meant to be understood.

This translation has gone through a few different names over the years. Its publishers have always referred to the text as Today’s English Version (TEV), but when its New Testament was first published in 1966, it was Good News for Modern Man: The New Testament in Today’s English. People came to call it the Good News Bible (GNB), which was its unofficial name till 2001, when it was officially named the Good News Translation (GNT) to emphasize the fact it’s a translation, not a paraphrase.

People will still use all these names to refer to it… though GNT is a little confusing for some, ’cause that’s a common abbreviation for the Greek New Testament. But it’s pretty easy to figure out whenever you’re talking about an English-language bible named the GNT, it’s obviously the Good News Translation; and when you’re talking about a Greek-language bible named the GNT, it’s obviously not.

It began with an inquiry: The Southern Baptist Home Missions Board sent a letter to the American Bible Society, wanting to know what’d be the best bible translation for someone whose first language wasn’t English. The ABS took it seriously, reviewed the current bibles on the market, and realized none of them were all that readable by non-native speakers. So… it was time to create one.

That task fell to ABS’s New Testament consultant and Greek specialist, Dr. Robert Bratcher (1920–2010), who translated the New Testament from 1962 to 1965. He borrowed a wordlist from the U.S. Information Agency, which regularly simplified U.S. Foreign Service documents into a vocabulary of less than 3,000 words. As a former missionary to Brazil, he practiced the same translation technique as Portuguese-English translators commonly do: dynamic equivalence, where you translate idea-for-idea into the natural speech of the target language, instead of so literally you risk a misunderstanding. A committee of five colleagues reviewed Bratcher’s work as he went, and offered suggestions and edits.

Mark was published as a test case in 1964, titled The Right Time: Mark’s Story About Jesus, with illustrations from Swiss artist Annie Vallotton. It got enough feedback for the ABS to go ahead with the New Testament, which was completed and published in 1966, in an inexpensive 25¢ paperback edition. It sold out quickly. So did its reprint. The price didn’t actually cover production costs, so the ABS had to raise the price to 50¢. But it kept selling—in the millions.

Big success, but of course not without criticism. Many people hated the idea of a bible in informal English. Hated the fact Bratcher interpreted their favorite idioms and metaphors of the New Testament; they wanted to do that for themselves. (And interpret ’em incorrectly, but in ways they personally preferred. That’s mostly why.) Fr’instance Bratcher considered αἷμα/éma, “blood,” a metaphor for death—which it often is—and translated it that way in six different instances. But plenty of Christians love to preach on the precious blood of Jesus, really want that word “blood” in their bibles, and were outraged when they couldn’t find it in the verses where they wanted it.

Regardless, Good News for Modern Man was popular enough for the ABS to tackle the Old Testament, which they eventually published in 1976.

Jesus prays at Gethsemane, in 𝘔𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘸.

Matthew 26.26-46.

The synoptic gospels all tell of Jesus praying in Gethsemane, a privately-owned olive garden on Mt. Olivet. Its name in Syriac is ܓ݁ܶܕ݁ܣܺܡܰܢ/Gad Smáni, which likely comes from the Hebrew גַּת שֶׁמֶן/gat šemén, “oil press.” John says they liked to hang out there, Jn 18.2 and Luke says it’s where they usually went. Lk 22.39 I already wrote of the Mark version of the story; now for the Matthew version.

Matthew 26.36-46 KWL

36Then Jesus comes with his students

to a private property called Gad Smáni/“oil press.”

He tells the students, “Sit here while I go there and pray.”

37Taking Simon Peter and Zebedee’s two sons,

Jesus begins to be distressed and troubled.

38Jesus tells his students, “My soul is intensely sad,

to the point of death.

Stay here and stay awake with me.”

39Going a little further,

Jesus falls on his face,

praying and saying, “My Father!

If it’s possible, make this cup pass by me!

Only not what I will,

but what you¹ will.”

40Jesus comes to the students

and finds them sleeping.

He tells Peter, “So you’re² not strong enough

to be awake one hour with me.

41Stay awake and pray!—

lest you² come to temptation.

You have a truly eager spirit—

and weak flesh.”

42Going away again a second time,

Jesus prays, saying, “My Father!

If this {cup} can’t pass by {me} unless I drink it—

your¹ will be done.”

43Coming back again, Jesus finds his students sleeping,

for their eyes are very heavy.

44Leaving the students again, going away,

Jesus prays a third time,

saying the same word again.

45Then Jesus comes to the students

and tells them, “Sleep the rest of the time.

Get your² rest.

…Look, the hour came near,

and the Son of Man is betrayed into sinners’ hands.

46Get up; we should go.

Look, my betrayer came near.”

Mark also says Jesus went off by himself to pray thrice—saying the same thing each time Mk 14.39 —but lest you get the idea Jesus is praying the exact same prayer each time, Matthew records two of the prayers. Both prayers have the very same theme—I don’t wanna, but your will be done—but they’re not the very same words. Same theme, different words. And when Matthew says Jesus prayed the same thing the third time, he notably says Jesus is saying the same λόγον/lóyon, “word,” again. Not “words,” as the KJV translates it; it’s singular, because it means message, not literally word. Same idea. Same prayer.

And same as Mark, the kids had fallen asleep while Jesus prayed. Preachers like to joke somebody must’ve stayed awake to recall what Jesus said… and if that’s so, y’notice they don’t record Jesus’s third prayer, because all of them were dead asleep by then. But no, nobody had to stay awake to take dictation. At some point later, one of the kids probably asked Jesus, “So what’d you pray in the garden?” and he told them. Jesus was more than capable of filling in the blanks in his own story, y’know.

God’s kingdom is justice, peace, and joy. Not food.

Romans 14.14-18

There’s an American saying, “Don’t major in the minors,” which is actually not about baseball: It’s about how we mustn’t make a big deal out of irrelevant things. Minor issues shouldn’t take up the majority of our time and brainpower.

But all too often, they do. Happens in politics all the time. There’s an art form to it: Get everybody riled up about something which doesn’t actually matter, but really triggers people’s prejudices, and they won’t notice the more important problems which you’re not dealing with—or worse, causing.

In Romans 14 the particular issue is vegetarians versus omnivores. Ro 14.2 The issue wasn’t meat per se, but animals that had been ritually sacrificed to pagan gods, and their meat sold at discount, which helped fund the pagan temples. Certain Christians figured this meant the meat was now cursed, and they didn’t want their money going to support pagan worship, so they’d rather be vegetarian. Other Christians figured pagan gods aren’t real gods, 1Co 8.4 and if you bless God when you eat that meat, it’s all good.

People are still easily outraged by other people’s diets. I’ve known vegans who were offended by the existence of meat-eaters, and hunters who were offended by the existence of vegans. Not their bad behavior (and both groups can be mighty ill-behaved), their existence. They don’t want them to exist. They want everyone to be exactly like them, and if they refuse to conform, they must die. Well, not die; be force-fed nothing but meat, or nothing but vegetables. Make ’em violate their consciences in exactly the way Paul of Tarsus told the Romans not to. Ro 14.22-23

In today’s passage, Paul admits he’s in the omnivore camp. He has no problem with eating such meat. A steak is a steak; it’s all steak, so it’s all good. But—if you’re eating it to antagonize the vegetarians of your church, and show off your freedom of conscience and “freedom in Christ,” you’re being evil.

Likewise the vegetarians who get rid of all the meat in the dinner, and force the omnivores among them to eat like they do. Forcing others to be like you, instead of encouraging others to be like Jesus, is not Christian, no matter how Christian you might claim to be.

Romans 14.14-18 KWL

14I knew,

and was convinced by the Master Jesus,

that nothing is inherently unclean

unless someone reckons something to be unclean—

then it’s only unclean to that person.

15For if your¹ fellow Christian

is bothered by food,

you’re¹ no longer walking in love.

Don’t destroy that person over your¹ food!

Christ Jesus dies for them.¹

16So people mustn’t slander

your² good deeds,

17for God’s kingdom isn’t food and drink,

but justice and peace,

and joy in the Holy Spirit;

18for one who serves Christ Jesus in these things

is pleasing to God

and appreciated by people.

In either case, focusing on food, and what our fellow Christians should and shouldn’t be eating—especially during fast times, like Daniel fasts or Lent—is once again majoring in the minors. Our religious practices are not what’s important in Christianity. Our moral practices are.

God’s kingdom is exemplified by justice, peace, and joy. Which are best exhibited when we love one another. And love neighbors, enemies, pagans, heretics, and even antichrists. When we function as Jesus to them on his behalf. When we promote the kingdom through that behavior—not our condemnation, which is something Jesus himself refuses to practice. Jn 3.17

Stations of the cross: Remembering Christ’s suffering.

In Jerusalem, Israel, Christians remember Jesus’s death by actually going down the same route he traveled the day he died. It’s called the Way of Jesus, the Way of Sorrows (Latin, Via Dolorosa), or the Way of the Cross (Via Cručis). When I visited Jerusalem, it’s part of the tour package: Loads of us Christians go this route every single day, observing all the places Jesus is said to have suffered. Really solemn, moving stuff.

But most of us Christians don’t live in or near Jerusalem, and some of us can’t possibly go there. For this reason St. Francis of Assisi invented “the stations of the cross.” In his church building, he set up seven different dioramas. Each represented an event which happened as Jesus was led to his death. The people of his church would go to each diorama—each station—and meditate on what Jesus did for us all.

Yeah, this is a Catholic thing, ’cause Francis was Roman Catholic. But it’s not exclusively Catholic: Many Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists use stations of the cross too. My church has ’em in our prayer garden. Be fair: If a Protestant invented it, you’d find Protestants doing it everywhere. ’Cause it’s a really useful idea.

It’s why I bring it up here. The stations of the cross are a clever, more tangible way to think about Jesus’s death, what he went through, and what that means. It’s why lots of Catholic churches—and a growing number of Protestant churches—keep the stations up year-round. Could take the form of paintings, sculptures, or stained-glass windows. Christians can “travel the Way of Jesus” any time we wanna contemplate his death, and what he did for us.

If you’ve ever seen Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, he made sure to include all the traditional stations in his movie. As do Catholic passion plays, reenactments of Jesus’s death. Protestant passion plays often include ’em too, though we tend to skip many of the events we don’t find in the gospels. As you’ll notice, some of Francis’s stations came from the popular culture of early 1200s Italy. Not bible.