Could’ve called down the angels.

Matthew 26.52-54.

When Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane on the morning of 3 April 33, the knee-jerk response of his students, same as every human, is fight or flight. Some fled; some fought.

And it was really stupid of them to fight. You realize Jesus’s Twelve (minus Judas Iscariot of course) consisted of 11 teenagers with no self-defense training, opposing the temple police accompanied by a mob. Definitely outnumbered. But you know there’s always gonna be a faction of true believers who think, “Numbers don’t matter! Gideon routed the Midianite and Amalekite armies with only 300 men. Jg 7 Samson personally slaughtered a thousand people with a jawbone. Jg 15.16 God can likewise supernaturally empower me to fight any number of people.”

Okay yes, God can do and empower anything he wants. But does he want to empower us to singlehandedly fight a mob? Did he state anything in advance about this sort of thing, like he’d said to Gideon and Samson? Or have we arrogantly presumed our cause is righteous, and right makes might?—because unless God intervenes, it really doesn’t, and if God hasn’t foresaid he’s gonna intervene, likely he won’t.

Had God foresaid he’d intervene in Jesus’s arrest? Or had Jesus said just the opposite, multiple times, Mk 8.31, 10.32-34 and the students were in denial? That second one. Jesus didn’t say, “We’ll go to Jerusalem and we’ll be just fine.” God hadn’t told anyone, “A mob will appear, but fight them and you’ll win.” Jesus warned them: He’s getting arrested. There’ll be no supernatural defeat of any mob. Neither Jesus’s kids will hold them back, nor 10,000 angels pouring from the black sky to smite every sinner on the ground. Jesus won’t fight back. He’s gonna surrender. On purpose.

And in so doing win, and win big.

But Christians still don’t understand this strategy. We still keep adopting the tactic to fight back hard.

Although the whole angels-pouring-from-the-sky idea? It actually was an option. And now I’ll quote that passage. It happens right after a violent follower lops off the ear of the head priest‘s slave. Matthew never identifies the guy (John does), nor points out Jesus immediately cured him (Luke does), but only records Jesus’s rebuke.

Matthew 26.52-54 KWL

52Then Jesus tells him, “Put your¹ machete back in its place!

For everyone who chooses arms

will be destroyed by arms.

53Or do you¹ think I can’t call out to my Father,

and he will give me, right now,

more than 12 legions of angels?

54But then how might the scriptures be fulfilled?

So this has to happen.”

I wanna zero in on this Matthew statement because it reminds us how utterly in control Jesus is: At any point of Good Friday he could’ve stopped it. Any point.

Stopping the mob with a word.

John 18.3-9.

In contrast with the mob arresting Jesus in the synoptic gospels, and Simon Peter whipping out a machete to slash at them, and chaos and fighting and a quick supernatural healing, Lk 22.51 the Gospel of John shows Jesus has total control of the situation.

Yeah there’s a mob; yeah they’ve come to grab him, and bring the usual chaos and disorder. But when they approached Jesus, he actually stopped them. With two words.

John 18.3-9 KWL

3So Judas Iscariot, taking the mob,

and officers from the head priests and Pharisees,

comes there with torches, lamps, and weapons.

4Jesus already knew what is coming to him,

so he comes forth and tells the mob,

“For whom are you looking?”

5They answer him, “Jesus the Nazarene.”

Jesus tells them, “Here I am.”

Judas his betrayer was standing with them,

6so when Jesus tells them, “Here I am,”

they move backward and fall to the ground.

7So again Jesus asks them,

“For whom are you looking?”

They say, “Jesus the Nazarene.”

8Jesus answers, “I tell you, here I am.

So if you seek me,

leave these others alone to go away”—

9so he might fulfill this word which he says:

“I’ve not lost anyone whom you’ve given me.” Jn 17.12

The two words Jesus said to the mob are ἐγώ εἰμι/eghó eími, “I am.” It’s short for “Here I am,” which is why I added the word “here” for us English-speakers. And various preachers love to point out “I AM” is the the name of God which he shared with Moses ben Amram in Midian. Literally what God shared with Moses was אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה/Ehyé ašér ehyé, “I’m being what I’m being.” Or, for short, יהוה/YHWH, which means the same thing—which we either transliterate as “Yahweh,” or translate as “Jehovah.” Anyway these preachers like to imagine—and proclaim all the time—Jesus wasn’t just saying, “Here I am,” like you would if you were surrendering, but boldly declaring the 𝕳𝖔𝖑𝖞 𝖓𝖆𝖒𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝕲𝖔𝖉, and identifying himself with it. So the Holy Spirit promptly knocked this unholy mob onto their keisters. “Every knee will bow,” Pp 2.10 and all that.

The Lᴏʀᴅ created the fish and birds.

Genesis 1.20-23.

Growing up, I was taught animals don’t have souls; only we humans do. I don’t know who first started teaching this idea, but obviously ’twasn’t an educated person. Anyone who knows Latin will recognize our word “animal” comes from anima, “soul.” And here in Genesis, we see God refers to the first sea creature he created as a swimming, living נֶ֣פֶשׁ/nefeš, “soul.” Says it right there in the bible…

Well, assuming your bible bothers to translate nefeš as “soul.” The KJV doesn’t. Straight-up skips the word. Oddly, when I use my bible software—which shows you the original-language word whenever you move your mouse over the English-language word—“hath” is apparently the word which translates nefeš in “the moving creature that hath life.” Ge 1.20 KJV Now no, that’s not accurate. The translators of the KJV weren’t translating word-for-word.

And neither are many bible translators. I’ve found most bibles translate the Hebrew phrase נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֑ה/nefeš khayíh, “living soul,” as “living creatures.” Sometimes you mouse over the word “living” and find it translates nefeš and “creatures” translates khayíh; sometimes it’s flipped.

A soul is a lifeforce. The point the author of Genesis (whom I’ll call “Moe” from here on) was trying to make, is these are living creatures. Not that plants aren’t alive; not that they don’t breathe too. But these creatures move around. They swarm. They fly. They’re obviously alive; they obviously have souls. Now, whether these souls are meant to live forever like us humans—that’s a whole other thing. But it’d be wrong to say animals lack souls.

Although you’ll still get some Christians who say so, and they’ll point out their bibles never describe an animal as having one. Well yeah, if your favorite bible translation prefers to render nefeš as “life” so you can’t tell it’s actually talking about the lifeforces of animals—like when the LORD forbids the Hebrews from eating blood because it’s an animal’s nefeš, Lv 17.14, Dt 12.23 or when you take an animal’s nefeš you have to make restitution for it, nefeš for nefeš Lv 24.18 —then of course you’re never gonna see that idea in the bible; it’s been hidden from you. Wonder why.

Well, I’m hiding nothing, so when I come across nefeš I’m translating it “soul,” and here it is in today’s passage.

Genesis 1.20-23 KWL

20God said, “Swarm the waters,

you swimming, living soul.

Fly, bird, over the land,

upon the face of the ceiling of the skies.”

21God created the great serpents

and every living, crawling soul which swarms the waters,

by species.

And every winged bird,

by species.

God saw how good it was.

22God blessed them, saying, “Bear fruit. Be many.

Fill the waters of the seas.

And bird: Be many on the land.”

23It was dusk, then dawn.

Day five.

How to study your bible.

When I was a kid, I went to a Fundamentalist church. Say what you will about Fundies; they’re really big on studying the bible. Though not all of ’em know how to do it properly. They definitely never taught me how.

I tried to figure it out on my own… which meant I seriously studied the notes of my study bible, which at the time was a Scofield Reference Bible. No, reading your study bible’s notes is not the same thing, but plenty of people think so; I certainly did. The folks of my church didn’t help, ’cause whenever I shared some Scofield’s “insights” with people, they looked impressed: “Wow, do you study your bible!” So of course I thought I was on the right track.

Same with every other bible resource I had. Mom had a little paperback bible dictionary; I read that cover to cover. Mom had a concordance, and I’d use it to look up original-language words. I’d read the bible a lot, so that made me pretty knowledgeable about what was in there.

That’s not a lot, but it’s significantly more than most Christians do. Most people, as soon as we get out of school—whether high school, university, or grad school—figure we never, ever have to study again, and don’t. We quit. We’re done. We might make exceptions for something important, like our contractor’s license, but we’re done. Study the bible? Nah. We’ll leave that for experts; pastors can study the bible. When we wanna get something profound out of the scriptures, we only expect to get ’em one of three ways.

1. Somebody else has to say it. Like a favorite preacher or author, whom we trust to say reliable things. (Trust based on what? Well, that’s another discussion.)
2. It’s gotta be a clear, obvious statement in the bible. Something anyone could find, like a penny on the sidewalk.
3. It’s a God-inspired idea which unexpectedly pops into our heads, like a bolt of lightning from a blue sky, as we’re reading the bible. Illumination, some call it.

But study? Go digging out truths from the text? Never gonna happen.

There’s a common but false assumption God’s kingdom, because it runs on grace, arrives by grace: We don’t have to make any effort. Just take the talent God gave us, bury it in a field, and it’ll grow like an acorn into a tree filled with shiny metal discs. Wisdom will just come to us naturally. After all, there’s no shortage of people posting pithy platitudes on social media.

Here’s the quandary: Which of these platitudes are true, and which of them are merely clever… but wrong?

’Cause I’ve heard loads of platitudes. So have you. I’ve been a Christian for more than five decades, and listened to sermons every Sunday morning, many Sunday and Saturday and Friday and Wednesday evenings, many mini-sermons by bible study leaders and prayer group leaders and college professors, many sermons in chapel at schools I’ve gone to or taught at, and of course sermons on the radio or podcasts. I have no idea how many Christian books I’ve read, both before and after seminary. Or how many posts on Christian blogs.

There’s a lot of advice out there. Most of it looks like good Christian advice. But it only looks good: Much is junk, is misinformed, is misleading, is foolhardy, is ignorant, is dark Christianity, is heresy, or is hypocrisy disguised under thick Christianese.

And some of it is pure Christianism: It’s pop psychology, godless nationalism, Mammon worship and social Darwinism, ulterior motives disguised as devout Christianity. It’s totally wrong—but sounds good. Sounds wise, familiar, benevolent… and totally appeals to our bratty inner child, so we repeat it.

How do we know the difference? Well, unless we have the supernatural gift of discernment (which in my experience, the Holy Spirit uses to point out false teachers, not bad theology), we gotta discern stuff the old-fashioned way: We gotta know our bibles. And not just superficially. We gotta study our bibles. We gotta buckle down and do our homework.

But we don’t wanna.

Meditation on the mystery of Christ’s suffering.

First time I heard somebody talk about meditating on divine mysteries, I didn’t understand what she was talking about. “She” was a Roman Catholic who was encouraging her fellow Catholics to do that… and I was a Protestant kid who was raised to believe Catholics are heretic. I definitely don’t believe that anymore, but at the time, I wasn’t inclined to give my Catholic sisters and brothers the benefit of the doubt: I was pretty sure she was talking about some weird spiritual practice that’d lead people astray.

Some of the problem—other than my anti-Catholic bias—is the fact the Protestants I worshiped with, didn’t understand what meditation is. They thought all meditation was the eastern type, practiced by Hindus, Buddhists, Transcendental Meditation, and various pagan religions: You clear your mind as much as possible, think about nothing, and see how long you can keep it up. Whereas meditation in the scriptures is all about filling our minds—with God. We think about him, and turn over in our minds all the stuff he’s revealed to us. Usually stuff from the scriptures. When that’s how you define meditation—and it’s supposed to be how we Christians define meditation—turns out my fellow Protestants do that a whole bunch! We just didn’t know to call it meditation. We let eastern pagans swipe the term right out from under us.

The other part of the problem is most Protestants didn’t know what mysteries are. To be fair, Catholics use the term far more often than Protestants—and define it biblically, and Protestants don’t. In the scriptures mystery means something we previously didn’t know, but thanks to Jesus, now we do. Biblical mysteries are mysteries solved. Revealed. No Christian who properly meditates on mysteries is thinking, as Sherlock Holmes might do, about something they can’t figure out, but hope to. Again, we’re thinking about stuff God’s revealed—usually in scripture.

Thing is, the non-biblical definition of “mystery” regularly makes Protestants balk at meditation. Look up “sacred mysteries” on the internet and you’ll find plenty of Protestants—and even some Catholics!—claiming these mysteries are “profound truths beyond human understanding.” No they’re not. They used to be beyond human understanding; the Holy Spirit figured humanity was ready for them, so Jesus revealed ’em and the apostles explained ’em. Meditation on them isn’t some weird intellectual exercise where we look into the void and hope it makes us deeper people. It’s getting to know God.

That said, let’s talk about what Catholics call the “sorrowful mysteries”—the stuff about Jesus’s suffering and death. During the Lenten season, and particularly Holy Week, Christians are regularly encouraged to meditate on how and why Jesus died. It’s not a mere martyrdom; Jesus wasn’t just meaninglessly killed by jealous and power-hungry people. I mean he was, but his death actually did something far more signficant than they realized at the time: It broke the hold of sin and death over our lives.

Simon Peter’s machete.

Mark 14.47, Matthew 26.51-54, Luke 22.49-51, John 18.10-11.

When I translate the gospels, there’s a word, μάχαιρα/mákhera, which people tend to translate “sword” or “short sword” or “dagger.” Which is actually no such thing; it’s a long heavy single-bladed work knife. It’s a machete. So I translate it “machete.”

And I’ve gotten complaints about this: “He wasn’t wielding a machete!” Yes he was. You just prefer to think of it as a sword. You’ve seen art and movies where people are carrying swords or daggers, not work knives; you prefer to imagine people were using proper weapons of war instead of any tools they happened to own. Even though it’s far more realistic they’d use tools, instead of spending a bunch of denarii they didn’t have on fancy swords with scrollwork and macho-sounding names. And this has always been true. Farmers dragged off to war wouldn’t have proper weapons, so they’d bring their sharpest farm implements. Spontaneous rioters didn’t have a cache of swords, so they’d bring pitchforks and torches. They’d get mowed down by soldiers with swords, battleaxes, and spears, and later rifles. But they’d defend themselves—pitifully—as best they could with what they actually had.

When Jesus was arrested, his students had machetes on them. And one overeager kid whipped it out and started to use it on the mob who’d come to get Jesus.

Mark 14.47 KWL

One of the bystanders, pulling out a machete,

strikes the head priest’s slave, and cuts his ear off.

It’s often said the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark, the nephew of Barnabas Cl 4.10 whom Paul initially refused to work with Ac 15.37-40 but later called useful. 2Ti 4.11 Tradition has it Mark became a student of Simon Peter, and Peter was the source for his gospel… and if that’s so, it kinda looks like Peter lied to Mark and got him to think this was some bystander, not him. But it’s more likely Peter simply didn’t tell Mark this part of the story, and Mark had to source it from someone else who didn’t know this was Peter.

How do we know it’s Peter? ’Cause Peter’s fellow student John outed him.

John 18.10-11 KWL

10Simon Peter, having a machete, draws it

and strikes the head priest’s slave.

He slices off his right ear.

The slave’s name was Malchus.

11So Jesus tells Peter, “Sheath your¹ machete.

This is the cup the Father gave me.

Shouldn’t I drink it?”

John identifies, and possibly knew, the slave; Malchus is a Romanized form of the Hebrew name מֶלֶךְ/Melékh. John wrote his gospel to fill in the blanks in Luke, and Luke’s gospel is the only one which says Jesus cured poor Malchus right after his ear was lopped off.

Luke 22.49-51 KWL

49Seeing what those round them intend to do,

the students say, “Master, should we strike with a machete?”

50One hit a certain one of them—the head priest’s slave—

and cuts his right ear off.

51In response Jesus says, “That’s enough!”

and touching the ear, Jesus cures him.

And lastly let’s see Matthew, in which Jesus rebukes Peter with his famous line “He who lives by the machete shall die by the machete.” Okay, I realize that’s not how you remember the saying, and I swapped “machete” out with “arms” because I’m quite sure Jesus wasn’t referring to any specific weapon. He who lives by the gun will die by the gun; he who lives by biological warfare will die by biological warfare; he who smites one way will be smitten the same way. Same general idea.

Matthew 26.51-54 KWL

51Look, one of those with Jesus stretches out his hand,

draws his machete,

and striking the head priest’s slave,

cuts off his ear.

52Then Jesus tells him, “Put your¹ machete back in its place!

For everyone who chooses arms

will be destroyed by arms.

53Or do you¹ think I can’t call out to my Father,

and he will give me, right now,

more than 12 legions of angels?

54But then how might the scriptures be fulfilled?

So this has to happen.”

This story is part of the stations of the cross, ’cause it happens during Jesus’s betrayal and arrest.

Armageddon.

ARMAGEDDON ɑr.mə'ɡɛ.d(ə)n noun. The last battle between good and evil before Judgment Day.

2. A dramatic, catastrophic conflict, likely to destroy humanity or the world.

3. The hill of Megiddo, an ancient city in northwestern Israel, south of present-day Haifa.

Revelation 16.12-16, 19.19-21, 20.7-10.

Whenever the United States goes to war in the middle east, American would-be “prophecy scholars” start talking about the biblical “Battle of Armageddon.” Oddly they never talk about Armageddon when other countries go to war in the middle east—when Saudi Arabia bombs Yemen, or Türkiye tries to annihilate Kurds, or Sudan or Syria has a civil war, or Islamic State terrorists try to fight anybody and everybody. It’s only when the United States or Israel get mixed up in things. It’s because these two specific countries are a big part of their End Times timelines.

Yep, even though the United States, or for that matter the entire western hemisphere, isn’t in the bible. At all. Anywhere. But these American “scholars” simply can’t imagine a future in which they and their homeland is not a big deal, so they shoehorn themselves into the End Times wherever possible. It’s why a majority of the characters in the Left Behind novels are American. But I digress.

Let’s first sort out what the “Battle of Armageddon” is, and of course I began this article with the dictionary definition. Next, the scripture which references it. This is part of John’s vision in Revelation of seven angels emptying saucers of “God’s anger” upon the earth. Rv 16.1. The sixth angel does so, and here’s what follows.

Revelation 16.12-16 KWL

12The sixth pours its saucer over the great river Euphrates,

and its water dries up

so the road might be prepared

for the kings of the eastern sun.

13I see, from the dragon’s mouth

and the beast’s mouth

and the fake prophet’s mouth

three unclean spirits,

like frogs.

14For the spirits are of the demons

which do “miracles,”

which come out of all the civilization’s kings

to gather them in the war

on the great day of Almighty God.

15“Look, I come like a thief.

How awesome for those awake,

guarding their clothing,

so they might not walk naked,

and might see themselves disgraced.”

16God gathers the kings

in the place called הַר מְגִדּוֹן/har-Megiddón in Hebrew.

Various preachers will claim Armageddon is “the plains of Megiddo” or “the valley of Megiddo,” 2Ch 35.22, Zc 12.11 but nope; הַר/har means “mountain, hill.” They’re not meeting on the plain, for battle; they’re meeting at the hill, to have a conference. To be fair, maybe they’re gathering to plan a battle, but any actual fighting takes place in other parts of Revelation, which I’ll get to. And these battles aren’t necessarily at Megiddo. Nor near Megiddo, nor anywhere around Megiddo. The first battle might not even be in Israel.

The ancient city of Megiddo was ultimately built on this hill, which is actually a tell, a hill which consists of all the previous civilizations which were built on that spot. When the ancients knocked down a building—or conquerers knocked it down for them—they simply flattened the rubble, then built something new on top. Keep doing this for hundreds of years, and you wind up on top of a hill. A hill is not a useful place for a battle; armies prefer plains, especially really big armies. Hence all the preachers who insist Armageddon is the valley of Megiddo, even though John quite obviously says it’s the hill.

Why Megiddo? Well it was along the major trade route between Europe, Africa, and Asia. People would travel through it to get to the other continents. Because of its strategic importance, different empires wanted to control it, so they conquered it throughout ancient history. Egypt owned it at the time of the Exodus. Then the Philistines fought them for it and eventually took it; then the Israelis under David took it; then the Assyrian Empire got it when they took northern Israel in 732BC; then Egypt conquered it again in 609BC. By the time the neo-Babylonian Empire conquered the area in 587BC, Megiddo had been abandoned. By Jesus’s day it was just a heap of ruins about 23km away from Nazareth. Someplace which used to be important, which no longer was, and was never rebuilt. Still isn’t.

So why would the kings go there? Not sure. Maybe the symbolism of being at an important trade route; maybe the symbolism of being someplace which used to be a big deal. Maybe because armageddon sounds like it begins with the Greek word ἅρμα/árma, “chariot,” and John was trying to make a pun and went over our heads. End times prognosticators think it’s because other major battles happened in the valley of Megiddo, so history’s just repeating itself. But again: Hill of Megiddo. Not valley. And no battle.

Jesus’s arrest, and his abuse begins.

Mark 14.45-52, Matthew 26.50-56, Luke 22.49-54, John 18.4-12.

The second station, in John Paul’s list of stations of the cross, is where Judas betrayed Jesus and Jesus was arrested. Same station for both. But different forms of suffering: Judas was about when your friends or confidants turn on you, and the rest was about the pain and dread people feel when their enemies have ’em right where they want ’em.

Let’s go to the gospels.

Mark 14.45-52 KWL

45Immediately going to Jesus,

Judas tells him, “Rabbi!” and kisses him hello.

46So the mob grabs and arrests Jesus.

47One of the bystanders, pulling out a machete,

strikes the head priest’s slave, and cuts his ear off.

48In reply, Jesus tells them, “You come out with machetes and sticks

to snatch me away, like I’m an insurgent.

49Daytime, I was with you in the temple, teaching.

You didn’t arrest me then.

But this—it’ll fulfill the scriptures.”

50Abandoning Jesus, everyone flees.

51There was some teenager following Jesus

who was naked, wearing a toga.

They seize him,

52but he abandons his toga and flees naked.

Matthew 26.50-56 KWL

50Jesus tells Judas, “Brother, why have you come?”

Then the approaching mob throws their hands on Jesus

and seizes him.

51Look, one of those with Jesus stretches out his hand,

draws his machete,

and, striking the head priest’s slave,

cuts off his ear.

52Then Jesus tells him, “Put your machete back in its place!

For everyone who chooses arms

will be destroyed by arms.

53Or do you think I can’t call out to my Father,

and he will give me, right now,

more than 12 legions of angels?

54Then how might the scriptures be fulfilled?

So this has to happen.”

55At this time, Jesus tells the crowd, “You come out

with machetes and sticks to snatch me away,

like I’m an insurgent.

Daytime, I was sitting in the temple, teaching.

You didn’t arrest me then.

56This is all happening so the prophets’ writings can be fulfilled.”

Then all the students abandon Jesus and run.

Luke 22.49-54 KWL

49Seeing what those round them intend to do,

the students say, “Master, should we strike with a machete?”

50One hit a certain one of them—the head priest’s slave—

and cuts his right ear off.

51In response Jesus says, “That’s enough!”

and touching the ear, Jesus cures him.

52Jesus tells those who come for him—

head priests, temple guards, and elders—

“You come out with machetes and sticks

like I’m an insurgent.

53Daytime, I was with you in the temple.

You didn’t grab me then.

But this is your hour—

the power of darkness.”

54They arrest Jesus, lead him away,

and bring him to the head priest’s house.

Simon Peter is following at a distance.

John 18.4-12 KWL

4So Jesus, who already knew everything coming upon him,

comes forth and tells them, “Whom are you looking for?”

5They answer him, “Jesus the Nazarene.”

Jesus tells them, “I’m him.”

Judas his betrayer had been standing with them.

6So when Jesus tells them, “I’m him,”

they move backward and fall to the ground.

7So again Jesus asks them, “Whom are you looking for?”

They say, “Jesus the Nazarene.”

8Jesus answers, “I tell you I’m him,

so if it’s me you look for,

leave these others alone to go away,”

9so he might fulfill the word which he says, namely this:

“I’ve not lost anyone whom you’ve given me.” Jn 17.12

10Simon Peter, having a machete, draws it

and strikes the head priest’s slave.

He slices off his right ear.

The slave’s name was Malchus.

11So Jesus tells Peter, “Sheath your machete.

This is the cup the Father gave me.

Shouldn’t I drink it?”

12 So the 200 men, the general, and the Judean servants

arrest Jesus and tie him up.

Weary? Come to Jesus. [Mt 11.28-30]

Matthew 11.28-30 KJV

28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Some Christians describe Christianity as really easy: All we gotta do is believe Jesus is Lord. That’s all. We need do nothing more. Needn’t change our lifestyles or behavior; needn’t believe anything new; needn’t even study bible, pray, or go to church regularly. All we gotta do is believe Jesus is Lord. And we’re saved! And that’s all.

You’ll soon discover these particular Christians really suck at being Christian. Because they really don’t do anything more. They do the bare minimum so they can consider themselves Christian: They own a bible, which they only open when they’re trying to prove the bible says or doesn’t say something (and since Google is way faster at determining this, they now don’t open those bibles). They consider one of the churches in town to be theirs, even though they never go. They don’t know any Christian doctrine, or might, but only believe ’em if they like ’em. They pray when they’re in a jam, but otherwise don’t. Definitely don’t change their lifestyles or behavior; they’re indistinguishable from pagans. You don’t even know they’re Christian till you call them pagan, and they loudly object: “No I’m Christian!” Really? Couldn’t tell.

Then there’s the other extreme. These are the Christians who describe Christianity as really hard. Because they’re trying so hard to be Christian. Not necessarily follow Jesus, which is what it properly means to be Christian: They’re trying to do as their fellow Christians do. They go to all the church services and functions. They pray like Pastor encourages ’em to. They vote as Pastor encourages ’em to. They frown upon unpopular sins. They wear Christian T-shirts and sport Christian bumper stickers. And sometimes they get mixed up in white nationalism, which claims it’s really Christian nationalism, but since God’s kingdom includes every people, nation, tribe, and language, Rv 5.9 why are any of these “Christians” promoting anti-immigrant stuff at their functions? Y’all just swapped white hoods for red hats. But I digress.

The reason these Christianists think Christianity is so very hard is because they’re pursuing public approval. Not Christ Jesus. What’s he say about following him?

Matthew 16.24-25 KJV

24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Okay he does say that too. But he also says today’s memory verse up top: His yoke is easy. His burden is light. Way easier and lighter than society’s burdens and yokes, because Jesus is steering us in the right direction, and they are easily swayed by whatever angry preacher is most popular lately.

The legality of Jesus’s trial.

When you read the gospel of John, but skip the other three synoptic gospels, y’might get the idea Jesus never even had a trial. In John:

• Jesus gets arrested.
• He’s taken right to the former head priest Annas’s house for an unofficial trial.
• From there, to Joseph Caiaphas’s house for interrogation.
• Then to Pontius Pilate’s prætorium for interrogation.
• Then to Golgotha for crucifixion.

No conviction, no sentence; just interviews followed by execution. Same as would be done in any country with no formal judicial system: They catch you, they interrogate you, they free or shoot you.

But both Judea and Rome did have a formal system. John doesn’t show it because the other gospels do. John was written to fill in the gaps in the other gospels’ stories—which include Jesus’s formal trials. There were two: The one before the Judean senate, and the other before the Roman prætor. The senate, presided over by head priest Caiaphas, found Jesus guilty of blasphemy and sedition. In contrast Pilate publicly stated he didn’t find Jesus guilty of anything—but he didn’t care enough to free him, and sent Jesus to his death all the same.

Is Jesus guilty of blasphemy? Only if he isn’t actually the Son of Man, and of course the senate absolutely refused to believe that’s who he is.

But Jesus actually is guilty of sedition.

I know, I know: Christians wanna insist Jesus is absolutely innocent. He never sinned y’know. But this “sedition” has nothing to do with sin against God and the Law of Moses. It has to do with human laws, Roman laws. Jesus is the legitimate Messiah, the king of Israel and Judea, anointed by God to rule that nation and the world. He’s Lord; he’s the Lord of lords. And that’s a threat to everyone who figures they’re lord—particularly the lords of Israel at that time. To Caiaphas, Herod, and Cæsar Tiberius, “Jesus is Lord” is sedition.

To leadership today it still is. Many of them don’t realize this, ’cause they don’t think of Jesus as any threat to their power. Especially after they neuter him, by convincing his supporters he’d totally vote for them and their party—and his so-called followers buy it, and follow their parties instead of Jesus. So it stands to reason our leadership isn’t worried about Jesus. Yet.

But in the year 33, Jesus was tangibly standing on the earth, in a real position to upend the status quo. He was therefore a real threat to the lords of Israel at the time—whether we’re talking emperors, prefects, tetrarchs, senators, synagogue presidents, or scribes who were used to everyone following their spins on the scriptures. To all these folks, Jesus was competition who needed to be crushed.

Following Jesus instead of these other lords: Sedition. Totally sedition. Flagrant, indefensible sedition. But it’s not against God’s Law. It’s only against human customs, so Jesus isn’t guilty of sin in God’s eyes; still totally sinless. Relax.

Thing is, Christians don’t wanna think of Jesus as guilty of anything. We wanna defend him against everything. We don’t wanna think of his conviction and trials as valid. We don’t wanna imagine his execution was a function of a corrupt system; worse, that perhaps our own existing systems are just as corrupt, and if his first coming had taken place today, we’d’ve killed him too. Nor do we wanna recognize sentencing him to death is in any way parallel to the way we depose him as the master of our lives, and prioritize other things over him. We don’t wanna think of his trial as a miscarriage of justice; we’d rather imagine it as illegal.

This is why, every Easter, you’re gonna hear various Christians claim Jesus’s trial wasn’t legal. That the Judeans had broken all their own laws in order to arrest him and hold his trial at night, get him to testify against himself, and get him killed before anyone might find out what they were up to. It certainly feels illegal: If you ever heard of a suspect arrested at midnight, tried and convicted at 2AM, and hastily executed by noon, doesn’t the whole thing smell mighty fishy?

“You can’t do this without prayer.”

Last time I wrote about prayer, I brought up the story of Jesus curing a demonized boy. When Jesus comes upon the scene, his students had been trying to exorcise the boy, with no success. Whereas when Jesus gets involved, this happens:

Mark 9.25-27 GNT

25Jesus noticed that the crowd was closing in on them, so he gave a command to the evil spirit. “Deaf and dumb spirit,” he said, “I order you to come out of the boy and never go into him again!”

26The spirit screamed, threw the boy into a bad fit, and came out. The boy looked like a corpse, and everyone said, “He is dead!” 27But Jesus took the boy by the hand and helped him rise, and he stood up.

We don’t know how long the evil spirit pitched its fit—a few seconds or a few minutes; certainly not the hours and hours we see in bad movies. But it obeyed Jesus and came out of the boy. Jesus cured him.

A bit later Jesus’s students had a question for their master:

Mark 9.28-29 GNT

28After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, “Why couldn't we drive the spirit out?”

29“Only prayer can drive this kind out,” answered Jesus; “nothing else can.”

The Textus Receptus has Jesus say “This kind cannot come out except by prayer and fasting,” Mk 9.29 MEV adding the word νηστείᾳ/nisteía, “fasting,” as is found in a few fourth-century New Testaments. A lot of ancient Christians saw fasting as evidence of devotion: A wishy-washy Christian didn’t fast regularly, but a hardcore Christian did. And prayed regularly. And only hardcore Christians were formidable enough to throw out such evil spirits.

Which… is probably quite accurate. And probably just what Jesus meant when he said this. He wasn’t trying to teach his kids, “Okay, whenever you find yourself dealing when an especially ornery demon, pray. Right then. Really hard. Oh, and start fasting—don’t eat anything while you’re trying to perform an exorcism.” The more we imagine Jesus teaching such a thing to his students, the more ridiculous it sounds. That’s how we know Jesus wasn’t talking about just then, in the moment, taking up prayer and fasting. There should already be prayer—and, optionally, fasting—in the Christian’s life, before that Christian is ready to face off against evil spirits.

Wasn’t there prayer and fasting in Jesus’s students lives? Maybe a little. Certainly not enough. Pharisees had already noticed they didn’t fast, and complained to Jesus about it, and Jesus’s response was they really didn’t need to. (This is why I’m inclined to say fasting is optional, and likely not part of the original text of Mark.) As for prayer, I’ve no doubt they prayed, but none of them were at Jesus’s level; not yet. They’d get there.

How about us? Are we trying to get there? Hope so.

Upbuilding takes priority over “freedom in Christ.”

Romans 14.19-23

Many a Christian likes to point to Romans 14 as the “freedom in Christ” chapter, and claim Paul therein teaches us we can do as we please so long that it doesn’t violate our consciences. And while that idea is certainly in there, it’s actually the opposite of what Paul’s trying to teach.

True, we’re free to do what doesn’t violate our consciences. But, more importantly, more the point of this chapter, we’re not free to do what violates others’ consciences. If they’re weak in faith, these things do violate their consciences. To their minds these things are sin. To their minds, when we exercise our “freedom in Christ” to do as we please in violation of their consciences, we’re sinning. To their minds, if we push them to do these things too—“Stop being such a spiritual baby and just eat and drink what I do”—we’re tempting them to sin. To their minds, if they listen to us, we got them to sin.

Their under-developed consciences are gonna bug them about it, and it’s gonna monkey with their Christian growth. They’re not gonna trust their consciences, instead of learning to hear the Holy Spirit through ’em. Rather than naturally move on to the next step, they’re gonna think every next step has to be offensive and uncomfortable—exactly like we made ’em feel by demanding they “grow up” too soon—and sometimes take “next steps” that don’t actually go in Jesus’s direction. Then live with those errors for a while… and hopefully realize they’re wrong and correct themselves, instead of leaping to the conclusion Christianity as a whole is wrong, and quit Jesus altogether.

Worst case, they’re gonna ditch all the Christians who are “leading them astray,” and go find a church full of fervent legalists who tell them yes, everything they believe is sin really is sin; plus hundreds of other things are sin, and the only safe thing they can do is give away all their possessions and move onto their compound and join their pastor’s harem. Yes of course I’m describing a cult. What’d you think the worst-case scenario was, apostasy? That’s awful too, but it’s actually not worst.

Ultimately this sort of callous disregard for newbies’ feelings tears them up, not builds them up, and Paul wants us to build one another up. As he says right here:

Romans 14.19-23 KWL

19So for peace, then,

we should also pursue building one another up.

20Don’t destroy God’s work over food!

“Everything is clean,”

but it’s evil for a person

to eat what trips them¹ up.

21It’s good to not eat meat

nor drink wine

nor whatever trips up your¹ fellow Christian,

{or makes them scandalized or sick.}

22You¹ have a belief of your¹ own:

Have it between yourself and God.

You who don’t condemn yourselves¹

for what you think is right

are awesome.

23One who still doubts it’s okay when they¹ eat,

was condemned because it’s not their belief.

Everything which isn’t their belief

is sin.

Instead of telling them, “Oh that’s not a sin; do it anyway” we need to recognize for them, for now, it is sin. And accommodate them, not mock them for their immaturity. Build them up till they can recognize on their own it’s not sin—not impatiently tell them, “You need to function on my level,” and ignore they’re not ready.

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.

Ash Wednesday: Lent begins.

Today is Ash Wednesday, the first day of the Lenten fast. It gets its name from the western custom of putting ashes on our heads. What’s with the ashes? It comes from bible: Ashes were used to ritually purify sinners. Nu 19.9 So it’s to repeat that custom.

Varoius Christians figure it also comes from the ancient middle eastern custom of putting ashes on one’s head when grieving. 2Sa 13.19, Jb 2.8 What’re we grieving? Well, Easter comes after Holy Week, when Jesus died, so they’re kinda grieving Jesus’s death. Even though he’s alive now, their emphasis is his horrible suffering and death, and they mourn that. Lent is one of the ways they mourn that. So, ashes.

Thing is… in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us when we’re fasting not to broadcast it.

Matthew 6.16-18 NRSVue

16“And whenever you fast, do not look somber, like the hypocrites, for they mark their faces to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

In many churches ashes are ritually sprinkled on one’s head, but in English-speaking countries the custom is to use the ashes to draw a cross on Christians’ foreheads. I don’t know how pleased Jesus is with those of us who wear these crosses on our foreheads all day. I think he’d much rather we show off our devotion by being fruity.

But over the past decade, mainline Christians have started to use the forehead-cross thingy as an outreach tool. Instead of only doing the ritual in their church buildings, their pastors go to public places with ashes, and draw crosses on anyone who asks.

• Sometimes they’re Christians who go, “Oh I forgot it’s Ash Wednesday; I’m gotta go get my ashes!”
• Sometimes they’re Christians who didn’t grow up with this ritual: “Ash Wednesday? What’s that? Well I’m Christian, so I’m gonna get a cross too.”
• Sometimes they’re Christian jerks: “Oh that’s a Catholic thing; that’s as good as paganism or sorcery; I’m not doing that.”
• And sometimes they’re pagans who think they’re Christian, or pagans who wanna try something “spiritual.”

Regardless, the mainliners’ goal is to get more people to think about Jesus than usual. It does do that.