Seek living bread!

John 6.26-29.

Jesus doesn’t tell a lot of parables in John. Some Christians claim he doesn’t tell any, but that’s not accurate. He doesn’t tell full parabolic stories; he uses one-liners. He talks to Nicodemus about wind; Jn 3.8 tells the Judeans about sheep in a pen, their shepherd, and thieves; Jn 10.1-6 talks about a grain of wheat that bears fruit when it dies. Jn 12.24 He uses metaphors and analogies throughout his lessons in John. In speaking about the bread of life, he constantly says “bread,” but you know he doesn’t literally mean bread. Or at least you should know this. Those with ears to hear, and all that.

The crowd of Galileans came to Jesus seeking literal bread. A few days ago, he fed ’em bread, and they were hoping for more. Lots, so they could regularly be full. An abundance of it; so they were seeking a wealth of this material. Do I have to spell it out any more? Fine: Material wealth. That’s all they wanted.

And a lot of Christians are the very same way. How many of us are hoping to make it to heaven so we can have a crown filled with jewels, and a mansion on one of the streets of gold?

Jesus instead wants us to have living bread. Which—spoilers—is Jesus himself. Jn 6.35

John 6.26-27 KWL

25In reply Jesus tells the crowd, “Amen amen!

I promise you² you² seek me,

not because you see miracles,

but because you² eat of the bread²

and are filled.

27Don’t work for perishable food,

but food which lasts for eternal life,

which the Son of Man will give to you²,

for Father God will seal this man.”

28So the crowd tell Jesus,

“What could we do,

that we could do God’s works?”

29In reply Jesus tells them, “This is God’s work.

So you should trust in that man he sends.”

Again, “that man he sends” is Jesus himself. Seek him. Not material wealth.

Jesus’s line “Don’t work for perishable food” is a similar idea to what he told the Samaritan about living water. Which likewise isn’t perishable, ’cause those who drink it will never thirst again. Jn 4.13-14 He’s offering us something eternal, and wants us to stop settling for the temporary and fleeting. Food and drink are really good examples of this. Here today, eaten tomorrow; and if not eaten it spoils. And of course you remember in the Sermon on the Mount when he teaches about treasures in heaven: Stop putting your trust in the perishable.

Since the imperishable “bread” Jesus speaks of in this chapter is himself, obviously he’s talking about our eternal relationship with him. “Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Jn 3.16 KJV

And of course this confused the Galileans completely, because they were fixated on literal bread. This bread metaphor still confuses Christians; just look at all the Catholic and Lutheran ideas about how literally communion bread represents Jesus, deduced from John 6—and this chapter isn’t even about holy communion! But y’know, those with ears to hear.

The not-so-living bread.

John 6.25-26.

The Galileans had come to the conclusion—maybe not in the right way, and certainly not with all the correct ideas, but nevertheless the correct conclusion—that Jesus is the Prophet-Like-Moses. As a result they were chasing him all over the lake. After all, Jesus had fed ’em bread, just like Moses fed the Hebrews manna. So he’s obviously the Prophet. And he’s gonna work with Messiah to overthrow the Romans, and all sorts of other End Times rubbish which Pharisees had been teaching them. But, y’know, free bread!

Anyway, they returned to Jesus’s home base of Capharnaum, and here he is! So… now what’s he gonna do? Hm? Hm?

John 6.25 KWL

Finding Jesus on the far side of the lake,

the crowd say, “Rabbi, when did you² get here?”

In John, Jesus doesn’t bother to answer their question. He does that sometimes. I suspect it’s because he knows their real question. It’s not the one they say out loud; it’s not the one they hypocritically try to pass off as real concern or real devotion. It’s the self-interested, self-seeking, selfish desires they have deep at the core of ’em. And lest you bash the ancient Israelis for doing this, we Christians all too often do the very same thing. Jesus sees right through us too.

So whenever Jesus’s answers look like non-sequiturs, they’re not really. Jesus responds to what people are thinking, not what they’re saying. Yep, he can read your mail. Any prophet can, and he’s the Prophet, remember?

John 6.26 KWL

In reply Jesus tells the crowd, “Amen amen!

I promise you² you² seek me,

not because you see miracles,

but because you² eat of the bread²

and are filled.”

In other words, they’re not coming to him because he’s the Prophet, and hears God, and can tell ’em what God wants them to hear. They’re not coming to him because of the miracles which indicate this is a guy to heed. They’re coming to him because he fed them. He gave ’em bread. Free bread! Unlimited free bread!

I mean, getting bread back then took work. You had to plant grain, wait a few months, harvest whatever grew, dry it, crush it to powder, mix this flour with water and add it to your starter, wait a day for the yeast to infest it, bake it on your clay oven, and then you could eat it. Jesus skipped every single one of these steps, and there was so much bread they had baskets of leftovers. Well, they want miracle bread. Do it again!

Okay, but… y’know, the guy hears God. (Infallibly hears God, unlike so many wannabe prophets nowadays.) Wouldn’t you wanna hear from God? Wouldn’t you like to have a deeper relationship with him? Wanna grow closer to your Father who loves you?

Nah; just the bread please.

It’s just like the “prosperity gospel.” They want all the treasures of heaven, but don’t want the Father. Don’t want God’s kingdom. They expect to go to heaven when they die, but never intend to make themselves suitable inhabitants for it; they figure that’ll somehow be magically done for them. They expect to love God then, rejoice to see their Father then, but don’t care to seek his face now. They just want material things and pleasant feelings now.

This was nothing new to Jesus. The Hebrews of Moses’s day were just the same way. The Israelis of David and Solomon’s day—same deal. Christians today—same same. People wanna feel justified and sanctified and “spiritual,” without actually obeying the Holy Spirit. ’Twas ever thus.

And Jesus has so much better for us in mind.

Tracking Jesus to Capharnaum.

John 6.22-24.

Previously in John 6, Jesus and his students feed 5,000 people, then Jesus dismisses the crowd and they cross the lake. The other gospels describe Jesus curing people in Khinnerót, but John skips that and has them simply find Jesus in his new hometown of Capharnaum.

John 6.22-24 KWL

22In the morning,

the crowd who stayed on that side of the lake

saw the other boat isn’t there—

the one boat Jesus entered with his students—

but only his students went away.

23But boats came from Tiberias

near the place where they ate bread,

when the Lord gave thanks.

24So when the crowd see Jesus isn’t there,

nor his students,

they enter the boats

and go to Capharnaum,

seeking Jesus.

25Finding Jesus on the far side of the lake,

the crowd say, “Rabbi, when did you¹ get here?”

Jesus’s response is to start teaching them about the bread of life. Which I’ll get to.

As I said in my piece on the 5,000 trying to crown Jesus, the people they fed had recognized Jesus is the “Prophet Like Moses” who, according to Pharisees, was gonna show up in the End Times, and help point the way to Messiah. This is why they were so very, very eager to follow Jesus: They were entirely sure the End was near, and Jesus was gonna help bring it about.

Yeah, they got lots wrong. Turns out the Prophet is Messiah. Pharisees weren’t as knowledgeable about the End Times as they’d have you think. Lots of today’s prognosticators are much the same way.

Jesus cures people in Khinnerót.

Mark 6.53-55, Matthew 14.34-36, John 6.22-24.

Sometimes I gotta remind people the authors of the gospels weren’t writing biographies of Jesus; they weren’t writing histories, though there’s plenty of historical stuff in there. They were writing gospels, a whole different genre of literature. They were declaring the kingdom of God, with Jesus as its king—and showing us why Jesus is its king, ’cause he merits it through what he taught and did.

So the gospels aren’t written in chronological order—though they will record Jesus’s birth or baptism first, and death and resurrection last. That’s why they won’t always line up. The synoptics often will because Matthew and Luke largely follow Mark’s order, but John often does its own thing.

This is why, after Jesus and Peter walk on water, the gospels go in different directions.

• Mark heads south to Khinnerót (KJV “Gennesaret”), a town about 8km from Capharnaum.
• Matthew goes along with Mark.
• John goes to Capharnaum.

Readers get their choice as to how to interpret this divergence. Some skeptics claim this is a flat-out contradiction: Jesus was either in Khinnerót or Capharnaum, and you don’t get to say, “Well, Capharnaum is close to Khinnerót”—nope; Jesus is either in one place or t’other, not both. Others point out this doesn’t need to be a contradiction—maybe Jesus landed in Khinnerót, then walked the 8 klicks to Capharnaum, and by the time people found him in John he was home.

Well anyway, let’s get to the gospels.

John 6.22-24 KWL

22In the morning,

the crowd who stayed on that side of the lake

saw the other boat isn’t there—

the one boat Jesus entered with his students—

but only his students went away.

23But boats came from Tiberias

near the place where they ate bread,

when the Lord gave thanks.

24So when the crowd see Jesus isn’t there,

nor his students,

they enter the boats

and go to Capharnaum,

seeking Jesus.

Meanwhile what’s Jesus been up to while the crowd is seeking him? This:

Mark 6.53-55 KWL

53Crossing over to the land,

they come to Khinnerót and moor.

54As they’re coming out of the boat,

Jesus is immediately recognized.

55People run round that whole region,

and begin to bring, on their beds,

those who have anything wrong with them

to wherever they hear Jesus is.

56Wherever Jesus enters,

into villages, cities, or countryside,

they’re laying the sick in the marketplaces,

and encouraging Jesus

that they might touch the tassel of his cloak—

and as many as touch him are cured.

God is transcendent.

TRANSCENDENT træn'(t)sɛn.dənt adjective. Beyond or above the range of human experience.

2. Existing separate from, and not limited by, the material universe.

3. Extraordinary, exceptional.

[Transcendence træn'(t)sɛn.dəns noun.]

Had to start with the definition because when people use the word, they usually go with the third definition. Transcendent is usually just a synonym for awesome—people wanna use an out-of-the-ordinary word for a superlative thing, and sure, “transcendent” works.

But when we use this word in Christian theology, we mean something a lot more specific. We’re affirming not just that God is very different from us, but that he’s significantly beyond us in every way. God is not merely the greatest thing, the greatest being, in the universe. He’s far greater than the universe he created. He’s beyond even that. He’s far, far greater than we can ever describe him.

No, this isn’t just hyperbole; it’s not humanly possible to accurately describe God’s greatness. He’s unlimited by power, by space, by time—so unlimited the only way it’d be possible for us to really get to know him, is he had to come down to our level. Which he did. Emptied himself of all his power (the thing about him we covet most) and became human; became Jesus. Pp 2.6-8 Who then tries to explain how God is to us as best he can, Jn 1.18 considering how astoundingly dense we humans can be.

Try describing the unlimited God with a limited human vocabulary. Try putting an accurate picture of the unlimited God into the limited space of a human brain. Jesus alone is the one who can do it, ’cause he came down from heaven. But even he hasn’t told us everything about God; even Jesus’s apostles haven’t told us everything about him. Jn 21.25 And Jesus preferred to describe God and his kingdom with metaphors and parables, not specific language; probably because specific language will get in the way.

So what we humans typically do instead of specifically describing who and what God is, is we compare him with things and people he’s greater than, and point out he’s obviously greater. We struggle to say what he is, but we can more easily say what he’s not. We talk about how Jesus and the prophets describe him in the scriptures; we have those teachings at least. It’s a start. But we can’t go much further.

Not that various Christians haven’t tried—and gone about it all wrong. Like when Thomas Aquinas tried to fill in some of the blanks with Aristotelian philosophy. That’s how we got the popular Christian myth God doesn’t change—because Aristotle believed change only makes you better or worse. A God who improves doesn’t sound divine enough for him; a God who gets worse definitely doesn’t. No room in Aristotle nor Thomas’s worldviews for a third option—a God who changes and remains at his best. A God who transcends our meager ideas of what’s “best”—who gives up divine prerogatives to become human, yet always remains God.

The Epicurean Paradox: Why is there evil?

Back in 2020 a reader wanted me to tackle the Epicurean Paradox, as it’s called. So I did. But I’ve had to update the article a bit.

Epicurus of Athens (Greek Ἐπίκουρος/Epíkuros, 341–270BC) is the founder of “the Garden,” a philosophy school. He’s a materialist, meaning he didn’t bother with spiritual stuff, and didn’t believe the gods intervened in human affairs. He’s also an empiricist, meaning he believed all knowledge comes from what we perceive with our five senses—not intuition, not rationalization; ideally you wanna go with the scientific method, but that wasn’t invented yet.

Epicurus believed the purpose of philosophy is to promote peace and tranquility, and alleviate suffering. Over the centuries “epicurean” evolved into a synonym for “foodie,” which is weird ’cause Epicurus preferred simple meals. He wrote more than 300 works on all sorts of subjects, but we only have three books and various random quotes. The Epicurean Paradox is one of those quotes.

And for all we know, Epicurus didn’t even come up with it. The paradox was a popular ancient meme, and wound up with Epicurus’s name attached to it, much like the Prayer of St. Francis. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it predates Epicurus; somebody had to have thought of it before him. In any event Christian philosopher Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (ca. 250–325) quotes the paradox in his book De ira Dei/“On God’s Wrath,” in which he critiqued the non-foodie Epicureans of his day. My translation:

[Epicurus] said God either wants to eliminate evil and can’t; or can, but doesn’t want to; or neither can nor wants to; or can and wants to. If he wants to and can’t, he’s weak—which fails to describe God. If he can but doesn’t want to, he’s jealous—which is equally alien to God. If he neither can nor wants to, he’s jealous and weak—therefore not God. If he can and wants to, which is the only proper conclusion… God, where are you? Lactantius 13.20-21

It’s obviously not an exact quote of Epicurus, ’cause as a polytheist he’d’ve referred to the gods, not God. Anyway, the gist of it worked its way down to Scottish philosopher David Hume, who put it this way in his 1779 book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion—placed in the mouth of his character Philo.

Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil? Hume 10

Clearly Hume never read the source of the Epicurean Paradox, ’cause Lactantius actually does answer the old question. Which I’m now gonna quote from the Ante-Nicene Fathers translation, “A Treatise on the Anger of God Addressed to Donatus,” ’cause I don’t feel like translating the whole of it.

For God is able to do whatever he wishes, and there is no weakness or envy in God. He is able, therefore, to take away evils; but he does not wish to do so, and yet he is not on that account envious. For on this account he does not take them away, because he at the same time gives wisdom, as I have shown; and there is more of goodness and pleasure in wisdom than of annoyance in evils. For wisdom causes us even to know God, and by that knowledge to attain to immortality, which is the chief good. Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good. But Epicurus did not see this, nor did any other, that if evils are taken away, wisdom is in like manner taken away; and that no traces of virtue remain in man, the nature of which consists in enduring and overcoming the bitterness of evils. And thus, for the sake of a slight gain in the taking away of evils, we should be deprived of a good, which is very great, and true, and peculiar to us. It is plain, therefore, that all things are proposed for the sake of man, as well evils as also goods. Lactantius 13

For Lactantius, God can but doesn’t want to—not because he’s evil, but because he’s gonna teach us to fight evil alongside him, and that’s good.

I like Lactantius’s answer. It’s not my answer, but it’s a darned good one. But it’s an answer which clearly won’t work at all for nontheists like Hume. Really, such people use these arguments to prove there’s no God in the first place, and any answer to the problem of evil and pain which involves God is unacceptable. I don’t know that Epicurus was nontheist, but as a materialist he didn’t figure a relationship with the gods was even possible, so it wouldn’t’ve worked for him either.

Let’s not forget those pagans who don’t even want such a relationship with God. They wanna believe in him, and maybe interact with him if he makes ’em feel good, but they don’t care to follow him all that much. Really they just want evil and suffering to stop already. And definitely don’t wanna be recruited into the battle to fight it; isn’t that God’s job?

Are our prayers consistent with the scriptures?

There are many reasons to read our bibles. One, obviously, is so we know God hears our prayers and answers prayer requests—sometimes with “no,” but that’s an answer!—and another is so we know God’s character and intentions, and know why he’d answer yes or no.

And another is so we know we’re not praying for something God forbids. ’Cause that’ll happen. God spells out what he approves of, and what he doesn’t, in the scriptures… but immature Christians don’t know the scriptures, and will pray for all the stuff God condemns. They’ll pray for evil things, immoral things, deceptive things, idolatrous things.

We’ll ask God for money—and we’re not even hiding how we worship money instead of Jesus, and we’re not even asking God to fund our daily provisions; we’re asking for conveniences, comforts, and luxuries.

We’ll ask God to smite our enemies. Not because our enemies are evil; sometimes they’re actually not! But they’re competition, and we wanna win. I’ve heard a lot of prayers before sporting events, both when I played in school, and among fans when professional teams play nowadays. A lot of vituperative prayers are made against the opposing team. Do the players and managers of those teams deserve any of the curses called down upon them? Not in the least. You think God appreciates any of this behavior? Not in the least. But fans do it anyway. Partisans do too.

We’ll ask God to hide our sins. Nevermind the fact God specializes in exposing hidden sins—if we don’t know our bibles, we won’t realize this, and actually think God might help us in our coverup. And he won’t. At all. He’ll tell on you. Ac 5.3 God’s our refuge in times of trouble, Ps 46.1 but not when we created and deserve the trouble, and definitely not when God’s empowering our prosecution.

We’ll even ask God for sin. We’ll ask him for idols; I already brought up money, but there are plenty of other things we prioritize over God. We’ll ask him for the things we covet—nevermind the fact we’re forbidden to covet. Ex 20.17 We’ll ask him to aid and abet us while we lie, cheat, and steal. While we abuse enemies and strangers. While we deliberately overlook the needy. We’ll justify all that lying, cheating, and stealing to ourselves, and presume that might be good enough for God too, and of course it’s not. Doesn’t matter what “righteous cause” you think you have which justifies evil.

I already brought up partisans; some of ’em are far more familiar with what their party proclaims than what the scriptures do. They naïvely presume their party is God’s party, and always does the right and godly thing, and that’s why they pray for their party’s wishes and success. Now, what if the party’s gone wrong?—what if it’s actually in opposition to God? Well, they can’t abide that idea; don’t you dare even say such a thing. They’ll persecute you like the pagan kings of Israel persecuted the prophets who dared rebuke the king on the LORD’s behalf. But obviously if the party’s gone wrong, God’s not gonna grant its members’ unrighteous prayer requests.

I could go on, but you get the gist. If you know God—if you know how your bibles describe God—there are plenty of things you won’t pray. Or you might pray ’em anyway, without thinking, but you do know better, and need to stop it.

Be good to one another.

1 Peter 3.8-15.

Simon Peter starts today’s passage with τὸ τέλος/to télos, “The last [thing],” but there’s two more chapters in his letter. How is this his last thing? Well it’s the last of his instructions to his readers about how we oughta live as Christians.

Scholars call these types of instruction “household codes,” but they’re not properly codes—meaning a list of laws one has to live under—so much as the right attitudes one should have when living under a patriarchal environment. You remember Peter began by addressing how people should live under Roman government, then how slaves and servants oughta be, then how wives and husbands oughta be. Some of these “household codes” also include instructions to the children of the family, but Peter doesn’t do that. Paul does. Ep 6.1-3, Cl 3.20

So this’d be the last part of Peter’s code—how Christians in general oughta be with one another.

1 Peter 3.8-15 KWL

8The last thing:

Everyone ought to be united,

sympathetic, loving one’s family,

compassionate, humble-minded.

9Not returning evil for evil,

nor insult for insult.

On the contrary, blessing,

because you’re² called for this reason—

so you² might inherit a blessing.

10For “One wanting to love life,

and to see good days:

Stop the tongue from evil,

and the lips from speaking deceit.

11Turn away from evil. Do good.

Seek peace and pursue it.

12Because the Lord’s eyes are on the right-minded,

and his ears are for their request,

and the Lord’s face is on evildoers.” Ps 34.12-16

13When you² become zealous to do good,

who will harm you²?

14But if you suffer for righteousness,

you’re awesome.

“Don’t be afraid of their fear,

nor should you² be bothered.” Is 8.12

15Sanctify Christ the Lord in your² minds,

always ready with a defense

for everyone who asks you² for a word

about the hope in you.

Jesus and Peter walk on water.

Mark 6.46-52, Matthew 14.23-33, John 6.16-21.

After Jesus had his students feed 5,000-plus listeners, while he was handling the crowd who wanted to king him, he sent the kids to the far side of Lake Tiberias (i.e. “the Sea of Galilee,” though it’s not as big as a sea. The Great Lakes are way bigger.) So as Jesus left the crowd to go pray, the students rowed their way south. Wasn’t easy, ’cause the weather didn’t cooperate.

Mark 6.46-47 KWL

46 Saying goodbye,

Jesus goes off to a hill to pray.

47Later, the boat is in the middle of the lake,

and Jesus is alone on land.

Matthew 14.23-24 KWL

23Saying goodbye to the crowds,

Jesus goes up a hill by himself to pray.

Later he is alone there.

24The boat is already many stadia away from land,

tortured by the waves,

for the wind is against it.

John 6.16-18 KWL

16When it becomes later,

Jesus’s students go down to the lake,

17get into a boat,

and go to the far side of the lake, to Capharnaum.

It became dark,

and Jesus hasn’t yet come to them.

18The lake’s wind increased,

blowing greatly.

The title of this piece shoulda tipped you off what comes next: Jesus will walk to them on the surface of Lake Tiberias. You’ve heard the story before. Heck, everybody’s heard it before; walking on water is one of the most famous stunts Jesus ever pulled.

But not everybody knows it in context. Don’t know what happened before it; don’t know its consequences. In fact it didn’t really have any. It should have had a massive impact on the students—it’s meant after all to teach them the Holy Spirit makes the impossible doable. But like Mark points out at the end of the story, these kids were mighty dense.

God has a soul.

In the past I’ve stated God has a soul, and it makes various Christians balk at the idea.

For two reasons. The first and dumbest is they have some weird beliefs about what a soul is. Some Christians use “soulish” as a synonym for “fleshly,” so they have some really negative ideas about the soul—so they really don’t wanna think of God as having a soul. To them, a soul is like the id in Freudian psychology—it’s selfish and totally depraved, and God’s absolutely not depraved, and how dare I describe him in such a way. Except I’m not! They’re defining “soul” wrong.

The other, which makes a little more sense, is they believe humans have souls—which we do; God put it in us. Ge 2.7 But they also believe only humans have souls. They think animals don’t have souls—and never mind that the Latin word for soul is anima, which is where we get our word “animal”; and never mind where Genesis states animals have a נֶפֶשׁ/neféš, “soul.” I know; most bibles translate it “life,” like yea—

Genesis 9.4 NRSVue

“Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”

That’s because soul means a lifeforce. Humans have a lifeforce; that is, when we’re alive. Animals, which are also alive, also have a lifeforce. As do plants and fungi and bacteria. And God, who’s a living God, Dt 5.26, 1Sa 7.26, Ps 42.2, etc. quite obviously has a lifeforce; he lives forever, so it’s probably the most potent lifeforce in the universe. He has a soul.

Of course if reason doesn’t convince people, I can always quote more bible.

Leviticus 26.11-12 NRSVue

11“I will place my dwelling in your midst, and I shall not abhor you. 12I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”

Naturally there are gonna be those who claim God doesn’t literally have a soul, and even though this is a direct quote from the LORD himself, they’ll claim God’s just anthropomorphizing himself—he’s describing himself in human terms for our benefit. Since we have souls, and “my soul” is a common synonym the ancient Hebrews had for themselves, God’s just borrowing our language.

Except no he’s not. Again, a soul is a lifeforce. God interacts with humanity in a way an impersonal force does not; in a way which makes it blatantly obvious God’s a living being. Electricity can’t love us. Gravity can’t forgive us—and typically doesn’t. Magnetism can’t promise things to the people it has a relationship with. The universe doesn’t care whether we live or die, and has no plans whatsoever to resurrect us after we die. God does.

Instead of saying God has a soul, plenty of Christians prefer to put it this way: “God’s a person.” There’s a catch though: When we’re describing God, the word “person” means something extremely specific in Christian theology… and has to do with trinity. Historically, Christians have taught God is three persons in one being. Saying God’s a person kinda implies we’re claiming God’s one person, i.e. not a trinity. I’m not claiming any such thing, and don’t wanna give people the wrong idea. “God has a soul” makes my point way better.

Why’s it important to point out God has a soul? Because not everybody believes he does. There are an awful lot of pantheists out there, and pantheists believe “the universe” is God; they’re one and the same. They might use anthropomorphic language to talk about the universe and what it wants, and might even call it God and use “he” and “she” pronouns. But they’re not talking about a personal, living being. They’re talking about an impersonal, unconscious, non-sentient thing. Their idea of God contains souls, but he himself doesn’t individually have one.

And some of that idea has leaked into Christianity just a little. I’ve known Christians who talk about “what the universe wants,” as if the universe was sentient and was God. Challenge them on it, and they’ll backtrack a little—no they don’t think the universe is sentient, no they don’t think it’s God. But they’ve been listening to pagans talk about how to get what they want out of the universe, and they’re starting to get adopt some of those pagan ideas… and it’s messing up their picture of God. So we gotta clarify. The universe doesn’t have a soul. (It contains souls, but it itself doesn’t have one; it’s not alive, not sentient.) But God has a soul, and is very much alive.

The Great Commission. [Mt 28.18-20]

Matthew 28.18-20 KJV

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

There are two passages which Christians tend to call Jesus’s Great Commission: The instructions to his students in the Long Ending of Mark, and this passage here. This one’s shorter, so more Christians have memorized it. Probably a good idea for you to memorize it. It’s not just a commission for the first apostles; it’s for every follower of Jesus ever since. Including you.

In it, Jesus instructs his students to disciple the ἔθνη/éthni, “ethnics,” which the KJV translates “nations”; which the students would’ve understand to mean gentiles. This is why some skeptics aren’t so sure Jesus legitimately said this: If he told his first followers to go to the gentiles, why’d they struggle so much with the idea, they had to have a whole council about it? But if you’ve ever worked with kids, you know they don’t always listen. Jesus traveled to other Roman provinces in the area—to the Dekapolis, to Tyre and Sidon and provinces north of the Galilee, to Samaria—and while there were plenty of ethnic Israelis in those areas, you know there were gentiles intermixed among ’em. He’d demonstrated many times his message was for everyone. So yeah, this is a legitimate Jesus command. Go teach all nations.

We’re to teach everyone, everywhere, everything Jesus taught us. We’re to baptize people in the name of the trinity. We’re to create new disciples, new students of Christ, new Christ-followers, new Christians, to preserve what he teaches, and obey him. And, lest we think he’s abandoned us to do it alone, he intends to be with us every day till the monumental job is done.

Which is… when? At the second coming? Seven years before? A thousand years after? Jesus only says “the end of the world,” which is kinda left open to interpretation. After all he’s gonna rule the world for a millennium, so the world won’t end for a mighty long time. All we do know is this age has an end-point. When that day comes, Jesus expects his kingdom to be full of people whom his apostles brought to him. We gotta get busy!

Too guilty to pray.

There’s two kinds of guilt: The emotion, and the legal status. Today I’m talking about the emotion.

Not that there aren’t people who don’t bother to pray because of the legal status—because, they say, they’re far too evil to talk to God. Rubbish; the only thing really stopping ’em from talking to their Father, is their emotion, and probably their pride—they’re just so bad, God can’t abide them. That’s rubbish too.

’Cause if the devil, which is probably as pure evil as beings can get (though there are definitely some humans who give it solid competition) had no trouble talking with God, Jb 1.6-7 we all know God isn’t so holy he can’t interact with evil creatures. Jesus ate with sinners, remember? So much so, it bugged snobs.

So yeah, I’m writing about the emotion of guilt—that feeling you’ve done wrong and deserve chastisement for it. Tied together with it is the irrational fear God’s gonna chastise you, when you approach him: “How durst thou stand before me and speak unto me, thou filthy sinner? Half a mind have I to smite thee with shingles.” And visions of this angry KJV-speaking cosmic hairy thunderer dance through our fearful brains.

’Cause we completely forgot God is Jesus. Was Jesus this way towards people who approached him? No. (Well okay, he acted a bit racist towards this one Syrian, but that was likely a test. Mt 15.21-28) When we turn to God in prayer, he doesn’t blast us with wrath and anger. He confronts us like the father in the Prodigal Son Story:

Luke 15.20-24 The Message

20“He got right up and went home to his father.

“When he was still a long way off, his father saw him. His heart pounding, he ran out, embraced him, and kissed him. 21The son started his speech: ‘Father, I’ve sinned against God, I’ve sinned before you; I don’t deserve to be called your son ever again.’

22“But the father wasn’t listening. He was calling to the servants, ‘Quick. Bring a clean set of clothes and dress him. Put the family ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Then get a grain-fed heifer and roast it. We’re going to feast! We’re going to have a wonderful time! 24My son is here—given up for dead and now alive! Given up for lost and now found!’ And they began to have a wonderful time.”

The son was feeling mighty guilty—but his father’s response was, “I have my boy back! Let’s party!” In a healthy relationship with a healthy father, your dad’s not gonna smack you around for screwing up; life will already do that aplenty. He’s just gonna love you, and be there for you. That’s God. That hairy thunderer?—that’s not a healthy father, ergo that’s not God. Stop letting that false image obstruct your relationship with God. Jesus describes his Father in his parable. That’s what we should expect—no matter how guilty we might feel.

“Wives, be subject to your husbands.”

1 Peter 3.1-7.

Just after Simon Peter addresses how household servants oughta live under difficult masters, next he deals with how wives oughta live under difficult husbands. And again, he’s speaking to people in a different culture, in the Roman Empire, where women lacked rights and couldn’t always escape their tyrannical spouses. They’d be suffering in the very same way a slave would under a despotic master. Does God care about them too, and have grace for them too? Of course he does.

And of course tyrannical spouses misuse this passage, and claim it justifies all their evil. It does not. Plenty of other scriptures warn ’em God doesn’t approve. Peter warns ’em too, in verse 7. In no way does any part of this passage negate those other passages, and in no way should you trust any pastor who suggests otherwise.

1 Peter 3.1-7 KWL

1Likewise you² women submitting

to your² own men

—and if a certain man doesn’t obey the word,

perhaps they’ll be won over without the word

through the lifestyle of their women,

2seeing their holy lifestyle

in fear.

3About them:

Don’t be externally like the world—

with elaborately braided hair,

decorated with gold,

or dressing in conspicuous clothing.

4Instead be like a private, thoughtful person,

looking into the incorruptible things

of a gentle, quiet spirit,

who is precious in God’s sight.

5For holy women who hope in God

lived this way at some point,

arranging themselves in submission

to their own men,

6like Sarah listened to Abraham

and calls him Master.

You² who do good deeds are her daughters,

and aren’t afraid of anything startling.

7You² men likewise—

living with your² women

with the understanding

that they’re like a weak utensil;

showing them honor

like they’re your² fellow heirs of living grace

—lest your² prayers be cut off.

I should remind you: Most bibles tend to translate women and men (Greek γυναῖκες/yinékes and ἄνδρες/ándres) as “wives” and “husbands.” Contextually, that’s usually what the New Testament authors meant. But not always. A patriarch was responsible for all the women of his house, whether they were married to him or not; this’d include unmarried sisters and daughters, widowed mothers-in-law, and any other family members under his protection, and of course household servants and slaves. They’d also be “his” women—and for the women, he’d be “their” man. They wouldn’t be married; they’d be in no sexual relationship (or at least they really ought not be!) but as the ruler of the family, they were expected to heed his authority and wisdom, and he was expected to take them into consideration and not act unilaterally. Did they always do this? Nah. Hence Peter’s need to remind ’em to do so.

Like most people dictating their letters, Peter uses some run-on sentences, out-of-place clauses, and forgets to use verbs. Makes translation and interpretation tricky—but not impossible! What he’s basically saying is: Christian women, be a good devout example for your crummy men. They may not listen to God’s word, but maybe despite this, they’ll listen to you; they’ll respect you, and be won over by your Christlike behavior. Hey, it’s been known to happen!

The Five Thousand try to crown Jesus.

John 6.14-15.

Right after Jesus and his students feed the 5,000 in the Galilee, this happens:

John 6.14-15 KWL

14So the people,

seeing the sign Jesus does,

are saying this:

“Truly, this is the Prophet

who comes into the world!”

15So Jesus,

knowing they are about to come and seize him

so that they might make him king,

goes back again into a mountain,

alone by himself.

The synoptic gospels also tell this story, but Mark and Matthew end it thisaway:

Mark 6.45 KJV

And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida, while he sent away the people.

Matthew 14.22 KJV

And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.

Mark and Matthew don’t say why Jesus ordered his students to “straightway” (Greek εὐθέως/efthéos, “quickly”) get into the boat, but John certainly fills in that blank: The crowds believed the miracle of feeding an entire town’s worth of people with one boy’s lunch Jn 6.9 was a σημεῖον/simíon, a sign from God. In their bible, the last time somebody miraculously fed a massive crowd with bread was when Moses ben Amram led the newly-freed Hebrews into the wilderness, and the LORD fed ’em manna. And didn’t Moses say this?—

Deuteronomy 18.15-19 KJV

15The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 16according to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. 17And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

The LORD goes on, describing a fake prophet in case anybody tries to pull a fast one on the Hebrews, Dt 18.20-22 and Christians really oughta memorize that passage, because many a fake prophet has successfully pulled some fast ones on us.

But even though people recognize (and are meant to recognize) the LORD is describing any prophet who steps up and says, “The LORD told me something,” Pharisees claimed this passage is also an End Times prophecy. At some point before the End, there’s gonna be a Prophet-Like-Moses who, just like Moses, is gonna rescue Israel from their enemies, take ’em back into the wilderness, and feed ’em manna.

Is Jesus this Prophet-Like-Moses? Yes he is. Simon Peter said so. Ac 3.20-26

Now, is he gonna do what Pharisees believed he’d do? Some of it. Definitely not all. Fr’instance he is gonna rescue Israel from its enemies… but he’s not taking Israel into the wilderness to feed ’em manna; there’s no need for that. Unless “feed them manna” is a metaphor for “teach them the word of God”—but again, there’s no need to take ’em into the wilderness for that.

In any event that’s the quandary Jesus now found himself in. Yes he’s the Prophet; no, he’s not gonna do that.

The Apostles Creed.

Whenever I bring up the Apostles Creed to Christians, I tend to get one of two reactions: Positive and negative.

The positive response tends to come from Christians who grew up in formal, liturgical churches. Most of ’em can recite the creed right along with me… though the version I memorized is the Book of Common Prayer version, and most of ’em tend to know one of the Roman Missal versions. There are minor wording differences, but it’s the same creed.

Third Day and Brandon Heath perform Rich Mullins’ “Creed.” Heath’s YouTube channel

If they didn’t grow up in such churches, or their churches never taught it to ’em, they might still know it. ’Cause they learned it as lyrics from a Rich Mullins song. Or someone else’s cover of that song. Or John Michael Talbot’s song, though that’s lesser-known.

Negative responses typically come from anti-Catholics who get weirded out whenever I dare bring up any form of ancient Christianity their churches never taught. They don’t see the point of creeds. Yet at the very same time, they’ll go on and on about the need for necessary foundational beliefs… which is precisely what creeds are.

The Apostles Creed (often spelled with an apostrophe; it doesn’t need one) is Christianity’s simplest, most basic creed. Here it is… in my translation from the Latin. As far as I can tell, the Latin’s the original.

I believe in God,

the Father, almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

And in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our master.

He was conceived by the Holy Spirit;

born from the virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended to the afterlife.

The third day, he was resurrected from the dead.

He ascended to heaven;

he sits at the almighty Father’s right hand.

From there he will come;

he is judging the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic church,

communion of saints, forgiveness of sins,

bodily resurrection, and eternal life.

Amen.

A creed, like this creed, is a faith statement. Unlike the faith statements drafted by denominations and individual churches, creeds were written long before the Great Schism and denominational divisions—all the way back when Christians still considered ourselves only one church. Whenever preachers tried to pass off innovative ideas and hypotheses as authentic Christianity, and instead created division and disharmony, church leaders throughout the Roman Empire and the world would gather, discuss, check the scriptures, and write creeds to reflect the orthodox point of view. Every true Christian should be able to say the creeds and mean ’em. Only heretics get tripped up by them.

Tradition has it the Apostles Creed is the very oldest of the creeds—even that it was written by the Twelve. It’s certainly old, and consistent with other creeds, but the oldest full copy we have of it comes from St. Permin’s Dicta Abbatis Pirminii/“Sayings of Abbot Permin,” written after 710. It looks far more like it’s a short version of the Nicene Creed—probably drafted by someone who couldn’t remember the full creed, but could remember the basics.

Who runs the church?

Who leads the church? Short answer: Christ Jesus.

Way longer answer: When we Christians are asked who runs our individual churches, most of the time we talk about the leadership structure of our individual churches: The head pastor, the other pastors or pastoral team, the bishop, the elders, the board members. Sometimes we’ll describe the leadership structure of our denomination. But if you pinned us down, everybody should say the leader of our church is Jesus. He is the king over God’s kingdom, after all.

But since his kingdom isn’t yet of this world, Jn 18.36 the day-to-day duties of running Jesus’s churches on earth fall to vicars. Vicar is the Christianese word for “deputy,” and means the very same thing: Lieutenants who answer to the guy who’s really in charge, who’d be Jesus. Hopefully we truly are working on his behalf, and not for ourselves. Though I leave it to you as to how well we’re doing.

Now, if you were to ask your average pagan who’s in charge of a church, most of ’em assume the pastor is. (Or the minister, priest, father, sister, bishop, apostle, prophet—whatever you call the top dog.) And most of them, unless they grew up around non-cultish Christians, assume the pastor holds way more sway than they actually do. Depending on how cynical this pagan is, pastors range from benevolent dictators to selfish despots. To their mind, every church is some form of top-down tyranny.

And to be fair, a lot of churches do practice a top-down model. It’s the most common church leadership structure there is. Arguably it’s the first structure: Jesus in charge, and his students not. And once Jesus ascended to his Father, it was followed by the apostles in charge, and everyone else below them.

Of course I say “arguably” because some Christians argue this top-down structure isn’t Jesus’s intent. They’ll advocate for their own favorite structure—namely the structures we find in their churches. And yes, they have proof texts. If you think church oughta be a democracy, you’ll likely quote verses which prove God thinks so too. Top-down, bottom-up, middle-out, nobody-in-charge-but-the-Holy-Spirit, or even benevolent anarchy, people will point to verses which they’re entirely sure determine their view.

Regardless of those views, I’m gonna point out the top-down model is all over Christendom because it’s consistently found all over the scriptures. And all over human history, all over church history, and all over humanity. It’s our default setting. Left to our own devices, it’s how humans choose to run things: We either have the top-down model imposed upon us by a king or dictator, or we deliberately choose it and elect a mayor or president. ’Cause most of the time, it’s just the most efficient way to do things. Congresses take too long to hash things out—which is great when you intentionally want to draw out deliberations, like the American Founders did. But once you’ve finally determined what to do, you want a president to act upon it. You want a top-down leader.

Well, unless you’ve been burnt by too many top-down leaders, and wanna try something different. Hence some churches run that way.

But regardless, everybody pays lip service to the idea Jesus runs our churches. Hopefully we let him!

Too stressed to pray.

Since I was asked to write about being too stressed to pray, I’m gonna… but I admit my advice may be inadequate, because I don’t personally suffer from this problem. Whenever I’m stressed, my knee-jerk reaction is to pray.

Not hit things, not flee, definitely not drink or get stoned—pray. Whenever they’re in a jam, plenty of people immediately call out to God; even atheists will do this, even though they absolutely don’t wanna, even though they’re pretty sure nobody’s listening, because they were raised to do this. When I was growing up, the people around me were predominately Christian; when they were in a jam, they prayed. I mimicked them; I prayed too. And still do.

And I’m aware not everybody was raised Christian like me, so they didn’t develop this knee-jerk reaction. When they get stressed out, their first response is to do the other things I just listed. Punch the wall—but ideally some other, healthier form of physical expression, like going for a run; like going to the gym and hitting the heavy bag. I got a lot of alcoholics in the family, and I know they immediately turn to drink. I have coworkers who are stoned most of the time, and marijuana is how they deal with stress too. I had a friend in college who handled her stress by having lots of sex with her boyfriend. If you grew up with unhealthy methods of stress relief, stands to reason you’d turn to them in a crisis.

But once you become Christian, you gotta unlearn the unhealthy methods, and learn to turn to God.

So my recommendation? Practice turning to God whenever you’re dealing with small stressors. When little things bug you, remind yourself to pray. Pray like that regularly enough, and when the bigger things wallop you, prayer won’t be the last thing on your mind. It may not be the first—you’re working on it—but your reaction certainly won’t be, “Prayer? Who has the time? I’m dealing with a crisis here.”

(Oh, and go to the gym too. That actually works a lot better than you’d think.)

“Servants, be subject to your masters.”

1 Peter 2.18-25.

So here’s a passage which has been regularly misinterpreted and abused by people who want employees, subordinates, “servants,” and slaves to unquestioningly obey their masters. Whenever they wanted a proof text that’d get people to shut up and permit their own exploitation, they’d quote 1 Peter, and claim Simon Peter endorses their despotism. After all, the word the KJV translates “master” in verse 18 is literally δεσπόταις/despótes… so apparently Peter was fully aware these people were living under tyrants, and it was okay with him.

It wasn’t, and I’ll explain. First, the passage.

1 Peter 2.18-25 KWL

18Those of a household submitting

in all fear, to the boss—

not only to the good and reasonable bosses,

but also the crooked ones—

19this receives grace,

if it’s because of an awareness of God

when someone who is wrongfully suffering

undergoes grief.

20For how is it glory

if sinners will undergo being beaten?

But if do-gooders will undergo suffering,

this receives grace from God.

21For this is why you² are called;

for Christ also suffers for you² all,

leaving you² an example

so you² might follow his steps—

22Christ who “doesn’t sin,

nor is deceit found in his mouth.” Is 53.9

23Christ who, being disrespected, doesn’t disrespect back;

suffering, doesn’t threaten back;

he yields to the Righteous Judge.

24Christ who “bears our sins himself,” Is 53.4

in his body, on the wooden cross,

so people, dying to our sins,

might live for righteousness.

“You’re² cured by his wounds.” Is 53.5

25You’re² “like straying sheep,” Is 53.6

but now you² return to the shepherd,

and the supervisor of your² souls.

We have to remember there’s a cultural context Simon Peter is dealing with. He didn’t write to the 21st-century United States; and if you’re not from the States he didn’t write to you either. His letter was for first-century eastern Romans. These people practiced a form of patriarchy—the paterfamilias, the head of the family, functioned like the king of the family, and largely had the power of life and death over everyone in it.

Obviously this includes slaves, but you might not be aware it also includes kids: Roman fathers could kill their children. Yes, this includes their adult children. Not for just any reason; he had to justify it to Roman society, but there were many reasons Romans would consider totally valid, such as defying or shaming one’s parents. Yep: Embarrass your dad, and he might have you whacked.

If you’ve ever seen movies and TV about Italian organized crime, like The Godfather or The Sopranos, there are a lot of similarities; these mobsters like to imagine themselves as modern-day Romans, and deliberately mimic Roman patriarchy. So, much like you can’t easily extract yourself from a mob entanglement, it was extremely hard to get out from under a Roman patriarch.

Jesus doesn’t teach like scribes.

Mark 1.21-22, Matthew 7.28-29. Luke 4.31-32.

As Jesus wrapped up his Sermon on the Mount, Matthew includes a comment about the way he taught his lessons, and the way his listeners reacted to it:

Matthew 7.28-29 KWL

28It happens when Jesus finishes these lessons,

the masses are amazed at his teaching:

29Jesus’s teaching isn’t like their scribes,

but like one who has authority.

It’s much the same way Mark and Luke described it when Jesus first began teaching in synagogue. Even walking-around rabbis like Jesus would teach in synagogue: They’d teach their kids on weekdays, and the general population on Sabbath—meaning Friday night after sundown. (Jewish days go from sundown to sundown, not midnight to midnight.)

Pharisee custom was for the synagogue president to let anyone anyone he recognized as a valid teacher, have the floor. Visiting rabbis and scribes, new guys, or young teachers spoke first. This wasn’t necessarily to honor them. If any of ’em turned out to be wrong, as sometimes they did, the last teacher—usually the synagogue’s senior scribe—would correct them, and get the last word. Synagogues were schools, Pharisees liked to debate, and sometimes they’d spend all night debating. Good thing it was Sabbath; in the morning everyone could sleep in.

Anyway, debates kept synagogue really interesting. But if the synagogue president (and later the Christian ἐπίσκοπος/epískopos, “supervisor”) couldn’t keep order, or when people lack the Spirit’s fruit, it could also become chaos. As you know, some people just don’t know how to be civil. They deliberately pick fights, or make personal attacks. Some will nitpick stupid things, defend loopholes, and spread misinformation. The evening could become an unprofitable waste. Happened among the early Christians too. Tt 3.9-11 Which is discouraging.

Into the belly of this beast, Jesus went to teach about God’s kingdom. Mark says this happened after he collected his first students from their boats; Luke puts this story before he collected ’em. Either way.

Mark 1.21-22 KWL

21Jesus and his students enter Capharnaum.

Next, on entering synagogue on Sabbath,

Jesus is teaching—

22and people are amazed at his teaching.

For in his teaching, Jesus acts like one who has authority,

and not like scribes.

Luke 4.31-32 KWL

31Jesus comes down to Capharnaum,

a city in the Galilee.

He’s teaching the citizens on Sabbath.

32 and they’re amazed at Jesus’s teaching—

because his word is given with authority.

The house on the rock.

Matthew 7.24-27, Luke 6.47-49.

Jesus concludes his Sermon on the Mount with his well-known analogy of building a house on bedrock, as opposed to building it on sand. Living by his teachings is building on bedrock. Ignoring his teachings is building on sand.

I live in California, where we see examples of this analogy played out on a yearly basis: Bad weather comes, and houses which were not built on anything solid either slide down hills, slide off cliffs, or slide into the ocean. Modern-day construction doesn’t bother to dig for bedrock; we build our own “bedrock,” namely steel-reinforced concrete foundations. Which is fine on a level plain which isn’t in danger of flooding, but people build houses everywhere, and don’t always plan for the worst.

Before Jesus became a rabbi he was a builder. Mk 6.3 Or “carpenter,” if you wanna go with the traditional interpretation of τέκτων/tékton—which doesn’t account for the fact a tékton is a person who builds stuff. Could be out of wood, but téktoni could also work in stone or metal, and could build both small things and large—including houses. So when Jesus discusses house-building, he knew what he was talking about. Heck, as Creator, Jn 1.3 when he discusses creating anything, he knows what he’s talking about.

Matthew 7.24-27 KWL

24“So whoever hears these teachings of mine

and does them

will become like a wise man

who builds himself a house on bedrock.

25The rain comes down,

the current comes in,

the winds blow,

and slam into that house—

and it doesn’t fall down,

for it was grounded on bedrock.

26And whoever hears these teachings of mine

and doesn’t do them

will become like a stupid man

who builds himself a house on sand.

27The rain comes down,

the current comes in,

the winds blow,

and slam into that house—

and it falls,

and it’s a huge disaster.”

Luke 6.47-49 KWL

47“Everyone coming to me,

hearing my teachings, doing them—

I’ll show you² what it’s like.

48It’s like a person building a house,

who digs, digs deep,

and makes a foundation on bedrock.

The flood-tide coming, the river bursts upon that house,

and isn’t strong enough to shake it,

because it’s well-built.

49Hearers who don’t do as I teach:

It’s like a person building a house

directly on the ground, without a foundation.

The river bursts on it,

and next it collapses.

The destruction of that house becomes great.”

When Jesus says, “I don’t know you.”

Matthew 7.21-23, Luke 6.46, 13.23-27.

Christians, particularly Evangelicals, quote this next teaching of Jesus a lot. But we tend to do this because we wanna nullify it. It’s scary.

See, it implies there are people who wanna get into God’s kingdom, who honestly think they’re headed there… but when they stand before Jesus at the End, they get the rug pulled out from under them. Turns out they have no relationship with Jesus. Never did. He never knew them. Psyche!

It sounds like the dirtiest trick ever. How can a Christian go their whole life thinking they’re saved, only to find out no they’re not, and they’re not getting into the kingdom? And by process of elimination, they’re therefore going into the fire? Holy crap; shouldn’t this keep us awake nights?

So like I said, Christians figure the solution to this quandary is to nullify it. “Chill out, people: This story isn’t about you. ’Cause you’re good! You said the sinner’s prayer and believe all the right things. This story applies to the people who won’t say the sinner’s prayer, don’t believe all the right things, and don’t realize they’re heretics or in a cult. You’re good. Relax.”

Or you can instead take the Dispensationalist route: “Remember, people, God saves us by grace, not works. And notice what Jesus says in this story about “Law-breakers” Mt 7.23 and “unrighteous workers.” Lk 13.27 He’s clearly talking to the people of the last dispensation, back when God didn’t yet save anybody by grace, and they still had to earn salvation by following the Law. It was true in Jesus’s day, but isn’t anymore. So we can safely ignore these scriptures. They don’t count for our day. They’re null.”

Obviously I’m not going with either of these explanations. I’m no dispensationalist (and neither is Jesus); humans never did earn salvation by racking up good works. Nor by racking up correct beliefs. Humans are saved by grace, and always have been.

So why doesn’t grace appear to apply to these poor schmucks, who tried the narrow door only to find it bolted shut?

Luke 13.23-27 KWL

23Someone told Jesus, “Master, the saved are few.”

Jesus told them¹,

24“Strive to enter through the narrow door.

I tell you² many will seek to enter,

and not be able to.

25At some point the owner could be raised up,

and could close the door.

You² standing outside might begin to knock at the door,

saying, ‘Master, unbolt it for us!’

And in reply he tells you², ‘I don’t know you².

Where are you² from?’

26Then you’ll² begin to say, ‘We ate with you¹!

And drank! And you¹ taught us in the streets!’

27And the speaker will tell you², ‘I don’t know where you’re² from!

Get away from me, unrighteous workers.’ ”

What’d’you mean the Master won’t recognize us? Isn’t he omniscient? Didn’t he at least remember all the times we hung out together? We had a meal with him! (Or at least holy communion—hundreds, if not thousands of times!) We studied what he taught! Why’s Jesus suffering from amnesia or dementia all of a sudden?

Like I said, scary idea. Lots of us like to imagine our salvation is a done deal, a fixed thing, something we can never lose unless we actively reject it. This story throws a bunch of uncertainty into the idea, and we hate uncertainty. We wanna know our relationship with Jesus is solid and real, and gonna continue into Kingdom Come.

Watch out for fake and fleshly prophets.

Matthew 7.15-20, 12.33-35, Luke 6.43-45.

Right after Jesus’s teaching about the narrow gate, Jesus gives a warning about people who pretend be prophets, but aren’t.

By prophet we Christians mean someone who’s simply heard from God, and shares whatever he’s said. If God tells me he loves someone, and I tell that someone God loves ’em, that’s prophecy. It’s not complicated. Any Christian who listens to God can do it. It’s why he gave us the Holy Spirit—so “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.” Ac 2.17-18 KJV Every Christian can prophesy, and oughta try.

But of course if there’s a real thing, and it’s valuable, there’s gonna be knock-offs and counterfeits. Hence there are such creatures as fake prophets. More than likely you’ve met some. They pretend to hear God—and they’ve learned some really good tricks to make it sound like they really did!—but they didn’t. For one of many reasons:

• Money, obviously. Churches might pay them to visit, and prophesy over people. Conferences might hire them as speakers. They could sell books and videos. Fans will send ’em money on a regular basis… instead of financially supporting their churches like they should.
• Control over others. They want people to listen to them and obey, because they supposedly speak for God. They want your pastor and church to obey them. They want the government to obey them. When they say jump, you don’t even ask “How high”—you just try to jump as high as you can.
• When sad people hear good news, it makes them so very happy. Well, prophets are in a great position to give sad people good news: Tell ’em what they want to hear! Tell ’em what they’re dying to hear. “You’re worried your atheist grandma went to hell when she died; well I’ve got some great news for you! She repented at the last second and I can see her in heaven right now, giving Jesus a big ol’ hug!” They’ll get so much love for saying such things. Feels great!
• People often presume prophets are extra-special Christians. God’s favorites. More gifted, more blessed, probably more devout. They wanna get revered like Roman Catholics revere their saints, so they try to make sure everybody’s aware they’re a prophet—i.e. automatic sainthood.
• And thanks to that automatic sainthood, fewer people are gonna notice—or believe it—when you sin. It’s a great cover for hypocrites.

There are plenty others. Hence there have always been fake prophets. And in his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives us a really handy way to quickly identify a fake prophet: Their character. Their behavior. If they’re legit, they’re gonna be following the Holy Spirit and producing his fruit. If they’re not, they won’t.

Matthew 7.15-20 KWL

15“Watch out for the fake prophets,

who come to you² dressed as sheep,

but underneath they’re greedy wolves.

16 You’ll² recognize them by their fruits.

People don’t pluck grapes from thornbushes,

nor figs from thistles, do they?

17So every good tree grows good fruits,

and a rotten tree grows bad fruits.

18A good tree doesn’t grow bad fruits,

nor a rotten tree grow good fruits.

19Every tree not growing good fruit

is cut down and thrown into fire.

20It’s precisely by their fruits

that you’ll² recognize them.”

When we follow the Spirit, usually his personality makes a serious impact on our personalities. We begin to act like him. More love, joy, peace, patience, and all the godly traits Paul listed in Galatians, Ga 5.22-23 plus other traits God has which we see mentioned in the New Testament. Like grace.

If you’re a fake prophet, y’might be able to fake the prophecies convincingly. Maybe even the fruit… temporarily. People who observe you up-close, long-term, will know whether you’re legitimately producing fruit or not. Which is why a lot of the fakes who aren’t, try to make sure people don’t observe ’em up-close, long-term. It’s why they prefer independent prophetic ministries, separate from any churches which might be able to catch ’em when they’re not performing. Why they travel, stay in town just for a weekend, and their riders insist on separate hotel accommodations—instead of staying with anyone from the church, and spending significant time with them. It’s why the stuff they preach sounds so iffy when you actually know your bible… and why the fruit they profess also sounds kinda fake.

The narrow gate. Or door. Either way, tricky to get in.

Matthew 7.13-14, Luke 13.23-24.

Most people are universalist, meaning in the end—if not at Judgment Day, at least way, way further down the road—God’s gonna relent, and let everybody into his kingdom.

Doesn’t matter how much they want nothing to do with God in this life. They might be full-on atheist. Might embrace another religion altogether. Might not even be good; they’re selfish, wicked, rebellious, downright evil. But universalists figure God loves everybody, so in the end he’ll just forgive all and let every last bloody one of ’em in. Even traitors, child molesters, genocidal mass murderers. They might have to spend a few thousand years in hell or purgatory first, but eventually they’ll get out and go to heaven. You get the kingdom, and you get the kingdom, and everybody gets the kingdom! (That last line works best if you can imagine it in Oprah Winfrey’s voice. But you don’t have to.)

The problem is Jesus said he’s not letting everybody in. He said this more than once. Today’s verses are two of the instances.

Matthew 7.13-14 KWL

13“Enter through the narrow gate.

The broad {gate}, the wide road, leads to destruction.

Many are entering destruction by it.

14The narrow gate, the tight road,

leads people to life.

Few are finding it.”

Luke 13.23-24 KWL

23Someone told Jesus, “Master, the saved are few.”

Jesus told them¹,

24“Strive to enter through the narrow door.

I tell you² many will seek to enter,

and not be able to.”

In a number of early copies of Matthew, Jesus only said, “The broad, wide road leads to destruction.” Possibly some copyist threw an extra πύλη/pýli, “gate,” in there before the fourth century; it kinda works, so most bibles go with it. As for Luke, it uses the word θύρας/thýras, “door” instead—but in the Textus Receptus Desiderus Erasmus swapped it for pýlis to make it match Matthew, which is why the KJV has “gate” in both places.

Jesus says there’s a broad gate and a narrow one. A wide road and a tight one. An easy way in, and a somewhat difficult way in. You wanna take the difficult way, ’cause it’s the right one.

Not because Jesus wants it difficult! Not because God doesn’t wanna save everyone. He does. 1Ti 2.4 But entering God’s kingdom means we gotta do it on God’s terms. People would much rather define the terms ourselves, or take a “shortcut” which turns out to be the wrong way entirely. Even when Jesus warns us away from alternate routes.

There’s an open invitation, an open door, and plenty of room. But people would much rather go to their destruction. Partly ’cause it looks like the path of least effort: They get to be absolutely self-centered and awful to everybody, and Pascal’s Wager—the worry there are eternal consequences to these actions—doesn’t sway them in the slightest. Partly ’cause goodness, grace, love, kindness, and generosity make them sick: They prefer karma and reciprocity, and they’re gonna hate how the kingdom lets in all these freeloaders.

Partly ’cause they think their path is smarter, more clever, more exclusive… as if they put one over on God, and found a loophole like the loopholes they find in their taxes. They forget God’s more clever than they. But that’s humanity for ya.

The Golden Rule.

Matthew 7.12, Luke 6.31.

The briefest form I’ve found of the “Golden Rule,” as it’s called, is probably C.S. Lewis’s “Do as you’d be done by.”

I grew up hearing it as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And this actually doesn’t come from the King James Version. The KJV has, “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” Lk 6.31 KJV I tried tracking down the other wording, and the earliest I’ve found it is 1790.

Here’s my translation of the two different ways Jesus taught it.

Matthew 7.12 KWL

“So, everything you² want people doing for you²,

you² do this for them.

That’s the Law and the Prophets in sum.”

Luke 6.31 KWL

“Same as you² want

that people might do for you²,

do likewise for them.”

It’s “the Law and the Prophets,” as Jesus put it—meaning the bible of his day, the Old Testament. (Yes the OT consists of Law, Prophets, and Writings; but Israelis understood “Prophets” meant all the ancient stuff written by legitimate prophets, which’d include the Writings. And since Sadducees and Samaritans insisted the bible only consists of the Law, it’s a reminder that’s not so.) The entire moral teaching of the scriptures can be distilled into this one concept: Do as you’d be done by.