Down an Unfamiliar Road

One phrase that I’ve heard over the years, and recently have detected even more, is when believers refer to themselves as “sinners saved by grace.” My understanding was, that this offered any Christian a nice way of witnessing to an unbeliever by telling them: “You’re a sinner, and I’m just a sinner saved by grace,” so that they would be less offended. But recently it seems to have taken hold as a genuine way for believers to refer to themselves in humility.

But this is not the designation I find in God’s Word. John tells us: “They believed in Him, and He gave them the right to become children of God.”¹ And even Jesus told those who believed in Him: “You are my friends if you do what I tell you to do. I no longer call you servants, because servants don’t know what their master is doing. But now I call you friends, because I have told you everything that my Father told me.”² And Paul the apostle addresses the believers in Rome as God’s “Holy people” or “saints.” We even sing a chorus in church now entitled, “I am a child of God.”

Yes! We should be humble in that we were nothing until the Holy Spirit called us and Jesus received us and God forgave us of all our sins and we were delivered from sin’s bondage. But we should also be thrilled that we are no longer sinners but part of the family of God.  So instead of introducing ourselves as sinners saved by grace, maybe we should think about saying we are children of God by grace. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

Most Bible readers know or have heard about Paul’s list of the Fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5. But we all know that Paul studied under a Jewish teacher name Gamaliel in Jerusalem before he was converted. In those studies, required by Jewish custom, he was to become familiar with the teachings of the great Jewish fathers. In one chapter we are told: “There are four things which bear good fruit in this world, and yield greater benefits for the world to come, if man observes them. They are honoring of parents, loving-kindness, peace-making, and, above all, the study of the Word. There are four things for which one who is guilty of them is punished both in this and in the world to come; namely, idolatry, incest, murder, and, above all, slander.” But to a greater degree, these teachings of the fathers also list additional graces that are developed by knowing the Word: “Reverence, respect, meekness, cheerfulness, purity, temperance, long-suffering, a good heart, acceptance of chastisement; loves God, loves righteousness, loves uprightness, loves reproof.”¹ So, for the apostle Paul, if these things were considered important and desirable by the unbelieving Jew, how much more should they be cherished and implemented by believing Christians. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER THREE

Part III

One well-known traveler in the Medieval Period gives us a very descriptive view of the Jordan River in the days of Jesus and John the Baptizer. I’ve left this quote in its original English text so you can see how thoughts were expressed back then:

“The river Jordanis¹ springeth from the Fountain Paneades,² which gave the surname to Cæsarea, whereof we will speak. It is a pleasant River, and so far as the situation of the country will permit, spacious, offering itself to the neighboring inhabitants; and reluctantly, as it were, it passeth to the Lake Asphaltites,³ cursed by nature: by which it is swallowed up; it loseth its own esteemed waters, by their becoming mixed with those of the Pestilential Lake. And therefore upon the first opportunity of any valleys, it poureth itself into a lake, which many call Genesara,⁴ which is 16 miles long and 5 broad. This environed with beautiful towns; on the east side with Julias⁵¹⁹ and Hippo⁶ on the south with Tarichea⁷ by which a name the lake is by some called; and on the west with Tiberias,⁸ an healthful place on account of the hot waters.⁹”¹⁰

Also, another Greek traveler and geographer who lived during the time of emperors Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, shares this story of an occasion when he visited the Holy Land. “And in the land of the Hebrews I myself saw a certain river Jordan passing through a lake named Tiberias, and entering another lake called the Dead Sea, in which it is swallowed up. The properties of the Dead Sea are the opposite of those of every other water; for living creatures float on its surface without swimming, and dead ones go to the bottom. Therefore there are no fish in the lake, for the fish see the danger and flee back to the water that suits them.”¹¹ So we can see, that even from the time of John the Baptizer many visitors and locals speak of Jordan as a delightful and beautiful river, just as it was when the Israelites crossed it into the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership.¹² Was the Jordan River there by pure happenstance? No! Did not God think of this before He chose this land for His children when they came out of Egypt? Yes! Why? Because He already knew that was where He would send His son and His forerunner named John who would go there before Him, and who would use this river to baptize all those who believed his message.

But not everyone down through history has seen this in a positive way. In a classic work of Jewish philosophy, we see how and why Christians are dismissed along with other despised groups. The writer says: “As regards the twin sects, the Sadducees and Boethusians, they were heretical sectarians who denied the World to Come; they are the heretics for whom we pray for their downfall in our prayers. The followers of Jesus are the Baptists who accept the Christian religion, being baptized in the Jordan River. The Karaites, on the other hand, accept the fundamental principles of Judaism, but they reason out particular doctrines by means of logical arguments. While the damage often extends to the root principles, this is all out of foolishness rather than intentional.”¹³ It’s not clear whether this Rabbi saw the ordinance of water baptism in such a negative light because they used the Jordan River, or because they “baptized” them, signifying that they were immersed under water. But even in our so-called enlightened world today, there are those who see water baptism by immersion as nothing more than an initiation rite that does not qualify as anything higher than the hazing administered when joining a Sorority or Fraternity.

Verses 7-8: “Many Pharisees and Sadducees came to where John was baptizing people. When John saw them, he said, ‘You are all the offspring of snakes! Who warned you to run from God’s judgment that is coming? Change your hearts! And show by the way you live that you have changed.‘”

Could it be that the Holy Spirit gave John the Baptizer an inkling about the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and he saw these Jewish religious leaders coming out to hear him like snakes fleeing a burning city? Or was it that John saw that the concoction of religious thought, laws, and practice that had been created by the human mind, was about to be severely diminished, as faith in the Messiah was about to be founded and take hold, increasing rapidly as they looked on in horror? The Pharisees and Sadducees were the two main groups to attack this new repentance movement initiated by John the Baptizer in obedience to the prophecy given by the angel to his father Zechariah.¹⁴ Jewish historian Josephus mentions them in his writings: “For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect called Essenes, which follow a stricter discipline.”¹⁵ They would later focus this denunciation on Jesus of Nazareth. First let’s look at the Pharisees and Sadducees to discover their beginnings and the religious philosophy that drove them to be such defenders of verbal law developed over the centuries, that apparently drove them into conflict with the heralding of the coming Messiah by John the Baptizer and then the Good News brought by Jesus of Nazareth, who said He was the Messiah.

PHARISEES: The word itself comes from a Hebrew word that means: “to set apart, be separate, or divide into.”¹⁶ From this root word came the name “Phares” which we find was the name given to one of the twins born to Judah by Tamar his daughter-in-law.¹⁷ Today they would be called Separatists. They were a religious philosophical Jewish sect whose aim it was to live in such a way that they kept themselves apart from persons or things thought to be impure, in order to attain the highest degree of holiness and righteousness required in those who wanted to a closer communion with God. This is clearly seen in the prayers of the Pharisees and those called “Publicans” or public servants.¹⁸ Their relationship with those in control of the Jewish religion can be liken to Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation. They first appeared on the scene in Israel in the time between the writing of Malachi in the Old Testament and the beginning events of the New Testament. They emerged out of a group called the Hasidim, which means: “pious ones”, who helped foster what is known as the Maccabean Revolt. You can read about this in the two books contained in most Roman Catholic Editions of the Bible calls 1 & 2 Maccabees. Not long after the revolt, the rising leaders of the Maccabeans became corrupt in the eyes of these pious ones. These descendants of the original Maccabeans had succumbed to Greek influence and had also illegitimately seized control of the office of High Priest. It is out of this pious movement that the Pharisees appeared. The Pharisees then formed a league or brotherhood of their own, admitting only those who, in the presence of three members, pledged themselves to the strict observance of Levitical purity, and to spurn any close association with those they called ignorant and careless peasants. They adhered to a painstaking payment of tithes and other tariffs due to the priest, the Levites, and the poor, and to have a conscientious regard for vows and for other people’s property. They were accordingly scrupulous observers of the Law as interpreted by the Scribes, in accordance with tradition. Therefore, they were opposed to anyone who tampered with the existing written word or spoken word passed down from generation to generation. In the Gospel of Mark we find a candid view of how the Pharisees were seen by the people of their day, “The Pharisees and all the other Jews never eat before washing their hands in a special way. They do this to follow the traditions they have from their great leaders who lived long ago. And when these Jews buy something in the market, they never eat it until they wash it in a special way. They also follow other rules from their people who lived before them. They follow rules like the washing of cups, pitchers, and pots.”¹⁹ This exclusivity was reflected in their arguments and debates, as we can see illustrated in the writings of early church father, Jerome, where he uses the Pharisees as an example of putting words in other people’s mouths when writing to his friend, a Roman senator. “The proofs which you have used against the Jews or against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which you used in your epistles. I see passages manipulated by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory which in the volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all. May he not reply to us in the words of the Savior: ‘I have one mode of speech for those that are without and another for those that are within; the crowds hear my parables, but their interpretation is for my disciples alone’?²⁰ The Lord puts questions to the Pharisees, but does not elaborated on them. To teach a disciple is one thing; to vanquish an opponent, another.”²¹ Also, Jerome mentions in another letter about a Christian woman dedicated to the service of the Lord, that “…her delight in the divine scriptures was incredible. She was forever singing, ‘Thy words have I hid in mine heart that I might not sin against thee,’²² as well as the words which describe the perfect man, ‘his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.’²³ This meditation in the law she understood as more than a review of the written words, as the Jews the Pharisees think, but of action according to that saying of the apostle, ‘whether, therefore, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.’²⁴”²⁵ Then again Jerome expounds: “…the Pharisees who separated themselves from the Jews on account of certain superfluous observances, and took their name from the fact of their dissent.”²⁶ This was the Christian’s view of the Pharisees. But the Pharisees’ fellow Jews also had issues with them. For instance, Josephus tells how, “after Alexander left the kingdom to Alexandra his wife, the Pharisees joined in with her to assist her in the government. These are a certain sect of the Jews that appear more religious than others, and seem to interpret the laws more accurately. It seems that Alexandra listened to their advice to an extraordinary degree, since she was herself a woman of great piety towards God. But these Pharisees artfully gained her favor little by little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed men at their pleasure; and, to agree with one another that they enjoyed the benefits of royal authority, while leaving the expenses and the difficulties of government to Alexandra.”²⁷ Since Josephus wrote this before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, it aptly describes the role of the Pharisees during Jesus’ time here on earth. They were strict observers of the traditions, also referred to as the verbal law of the elders. As philosophers they believed both in fate and free will. Jewish historian Josephus also notes this: “Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate.”²⁸ They were in harmony with Jesus in that they believed in the resurrection of the dead, and that there were angels and spirits. But they were opposed to Him and His disciples because they did not practice the rules forbidding work on the Sabbath and demanding washing one’s hands before eating. In the Jerusalem Talmud of 200 AD we find it said: “There are seven kinds of Pharisees: The ‘showy Pharisee’ – who carries his good deeds on his shoulder to show them off. The ‘haughty Pharisee’ – who says, ‘wait for me. I am busy using my time to fulfill the commandments! I have no time for you.’ The ‘bookkeeper Pharisee’ – who atones for each sin by performing a good deed. The ‘stingy Pharisee’ – who says ‘From the little I have, what can I set aside for performing good deeds?’ The ‘repaying Pharisee’ – who says, ‘Tell me what sin I have committed and I will perform a good deed to offset it.’ These five types are negative, pompous, ostentatious models. The ‘reverent Pharisee’ – who emulates Job. The ‘loving Pharisee’ – who emulates Abraham.”²⁹ Likewise in the Babylonian Talmud of 500 AD we find where they refer to the “plague of pharisees”, and say that their Rabbis also taught about seven types of Pharisees. By comparison we can see how over some 300 years the definitions and criticisms changed. Their explanation goes as follows: “The shikmi Pharisee — he is one who performs the action of Shechem.³⁰ The nikpi Pharisee — he is one who knocks his feet together.³¹ The kizai Pharisee — the one who butts his head against wall.³² The ‘pestle’ Pharisee — His head is bowed like a pestle in a mortar. The Pharisee who constantly exclaims: ‘Tell me my duty that I may perform it?’ — which to them is a virtue!’³³ The one who is a Pharisee out of love and one who is a Pharisee out of fear³⁴.’”³⁵ When this sect first began, and who the originator was is not easy to say. It is certain, there were great numbers of them during the time of John the Baptist, and of Jesus, and for many years thereafter. The Jews say, that after the Temple was destroyed the second time, the Pharisees, better known as “ascetics”, increased rapidly in large numbers as Israelis joined them, and increased their abstinence from meat and wine. They did this as their way of piously restricting themselves by saying: “Should we eat flesh which used to be brought as an offering on the altar, now that this altar is no longer around? Should we drink wine which used to be poured as a libation on the altar, but is now no longer done?”³⁶ It is interesting that when asked if they were going to stop eating bread because the meal offerings had ceased; and would they no longer eat fruit because there was no longer an offering of first-fruits; of would they cease drinking water because there was no longer a ceremony of water being poured out on the altar, one writer said amazingly: “To this they could find no answer.”³⁷ In spite of this, it makes it even more puzzling as to how the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Scribes, leading priests and Sanhedrin were able to put aside all their differences in order to oppose Jesus and His message of salvation through grace by His heavenly Father.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER THREE

Part II (con’t)

Verses 5-6: “People came to John from Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and from all the areas along the Jordan River. They confessed their sins, and John then baptized them in the Jordan River.”

One modern Jewish polemic writer raises the same question the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law brought to John the Baptizer on his immersing believers in water to confirm their repentence: “Why was this done? Who commanded John to administer this baptism? In what Testament did he find it? Not in the old one nor in the new one. Furthermore, when he did baptize them, he did so in a river.”¹ But his point was not necessarily to criticize John the Baptizer, but the Church that existed in his day. So he asks: “Why, then, don’t these Gentiles who learned from him do so in a river? The fact is that we see that they are not careful about this but immerse themselves in water that has been drawn using vessels to fill a pool.”² This skeptic need only read at the end of Matthew to find out Jesus did not specify that the water for baptism must be conducted in a river. In fact, using water in pools for Jewish purification rites is well established in Scripture.³ One Jewish scholar taught that such purification was a blessed event. He says: “Fortunate are you O Israel! Before whom you do purify yourselves? And who purifies you? Your Father in Heaven! As it is said: ‘I will sprinkle upon you pure water and you will become pure,⁴ and it is further said: ‘The hope of Israel is the Lord,’⁵ just as a pool purifies the defiled, so too does the Holy One, Blessed is He, purify Israel.”⁶

Another reason why the Jordan River may have attracted John the Baptizer for his ministry is because of what happened to the Aramean General named Naaman.⁷ If its water could cleanse someone from leprosy, certainly it could cleanse them from sin. Also, Jewish historian Josephus tells us that even during very tense and stressful times among the Jews and Romans during those days, being purified was a must before undertaking any action that involved entering a holy place. He shares how Ananus, the son of the high priest Ananus “…did not think it was fit to make any attack against the holy gates, although the other threw their stones and darts at them from above. He deemed it unlawful to introduce the multitude into the temple court before they were purified.”⁸ So as we can see, it played an important role in the life of every dedicated Jew. Also, we find that on the Day of Atonement: “…the priest stood in the east with his face to the west and he pressed both his hands upon the sacrifice and made confession. And thus he would say: ‘O LORD! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house. O LORD! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house. As it is written in the Torah of Moses Your servant: for on this day will atonement be made for you to cleanse you; from all your sins will you be clean before the Lord.⁹”¹⁰ One Jewish Rabbi tells us how he composed a parable in which to illustrate this point: He relates the story this way:

“A king decreed to his kingdom that his subjects conduct their lives in accordance with the constitution he had passed. The king had appointed different levels of the judiciary and law enforcement officers to ensure that his will would be carried out. As the head of his law enforcement officers he appointed someone known as being efficient, stern, and quick to prosecute. He was charged to summon any of the subjects who were derelict to appear before him for judgment. He also picked a certain day in the calendar when such trials of accused subjects would be held and the chief law enforcement officer would present the charges brought against the wrongdoers. On that same day the king was also in the habit of handing out prizes to subjects who had been loyal to him throughout the year. It so happened that this king had a close friend, whom he loved as much as his own life, and to his embarrassment, this friend had been accused of murder as well as of robbery, and therefore the enforcement officer wanted to find him innocent when he came up for judgment. In spite of the king’s great love for this friend, the enforcement officer ordered this friend to pay ten thousand talents of silver to the king’s treasury prior to his appearance in court. This was intended as a fine designed to wipe out his guilt. When the day arrived on which the king was in the habit of rewarding all the loyal citizens of his kingdom, the very same day on which justice would be meted out to the subjects guilty of various felonies, the king, as was his custom, sent the annual gifts to all the loyal citizens, but he did not send anything at all to the chief prosecutor. However, some ten days later he sent the annual gift to his chief prosecutor, choosing as his messenger for delivery of the gift his former friend, the very person who had been accused of murder and robbery. He had chosen this man accused of murder and robbery as his messenger in order to make the chief prosecutor aware that the accused had not fallen out of favor with his king, but had become the means by which the chief prosecutor would receive his due, although a little later than usual. The chief prosecutor now realized that the king had decided to forgive his onetime friend, and that if he did not respect his employer’s wishes in the matter, his own life might well be in jeopardy. When the trial was about to begin, the chief prosecutor presented his case so unconvincingly that the king’s tribunal found the accused not guilty. In this parable, the king was God. The chief prosecutor, otherwise known as Satan, showed how the devil is always bent on finding everyone guilty without making allowances for human weakness.¹¹

I’ve included this story to show you that telling a parable in order to drive home a spiritual point was already a part of teaching among the Jews. Therefore, not only does this story show how our Lord’s own parables were an acceptable form of teaching truths and morals, but even bears some resembles to a number of Jesus’ parables in that it involves a king, judgment and forgiveness. Perhaps this is why John the Baptizer had people seek forgiveness by praying and confessing their sins before baptizing them. This no doubt has contributed to our present belief requiring that sinners pray for forgiveness and receive salvation before immersing them in water.

For John the Baptizer, baptism was not a simple method for figuratively washing away the stains on one’s record from some transgression or other breaking of the law. This could be done through the Levitical laws of purity. John’s baptism was to initiate a life of holy living and open the door to attain closer communion with God. Josephus, the Jewish historian, records this: “John, that was called the Baptizer: commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for the washing would be acceptable to him if they made use of it, not in order to put away some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when others came, they were very greatly moved by hearing his words.”¹² Therefore, John’s ministry symbolized the call to repentance before baptism in the Jordan River;¹³ and the same measure for attaining to holiness was employed by the Essenes, whose ways of life John also observed in all other respects. Josephus, who spent several years with the Essenes, said of his instructor named Banus, that he “…lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than what grew on trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his purity.”¹⁴ This same practice was observed by all the Essenes. Since the Jordan River is the main water tributary that runs north to south, from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, there is no question that this was the river chosen by John the Baptizer to carry out his ministry.

As I mentioned before, some among the Jewish critics during the medieval period did not see why John the Baptizer did to Jesus was not now being carried out by those in the church who claim to be his followers. This German Rabbi does have a point, and that is: how did the method that John the Baptizer used to baptize Jesus, evolve into sprinkling, christening, and immersion in baptismal pools? As a boy I remember how most Pentecostal and Baptists would not use a baptismal pool, but would always find a river or lake nearby. We also find that the Jordan river was very important to the Jewish people, because it not only served as a source of water, but also for transportation. Some Rabbis once had this exchange in which they mention “A little ship used for riding on the Jordan.”¹⁵ So there were ships going up and down the Jordan delivering produce. Then we find this ancient geographical information about the Jordan River as taught in the Baraitha:¹⁶ that the Jordan river issued from a cavern to the north near Caesarea Philippi, flowing down to the Sea of Galilee, and then onto the Dead Sea. And on one occasion a Rabbi asked: “Why is it called the Jordan river?” The answer: “Because the word “Jor” means “down”, and the word “Dan” means the territory given to the tribe of Dan,¹⁷ when they settled the Promised Land.”¹⁸ So put together you get Jor-dan. Today, the water from this cavern no longer gushes up from the bedrock as it did before, because an earthquake some centuries ago blocked it.

But one thing that comes out of this is how water baptism has become in many branches of Christianity a substitute for true repentance. The Pharisaic belief that immersion in water to cleanse the external part of the body was also sufficient to cleanse the internal part. If you were to stop many people who call themselves Christians and ask them when did they become believers, many will point to their baptism as a child or even as an adult. We could say, that’s the concept John the Baptizer came to eradicate before the Messiah who would follow him came to preach a new baptism in the Spirit which did the process in reverse. In other words, the inside is made clean and pure first, and then purity on the outside follows.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER THREE

Part II

Also, the term “Kingdom of heaven” was not new to the Jewish ear. For instance, Rabbis were once discussing what God meant after He saw everything that He had made and behold it was very good. One Rabbi declared that God was talking about the Kingdom of Heaven.¹ Also, in another Jewish document we find this description: “Therefore, it is necessary we should study the secret doctrine day and night and observe its teachings and doctrines. By night, when reclining on our beds we ought to submit ourselves to the kingdom of heaven and make it our chief object to commend ourselves to the care and guardianship of the Almighty.”² And again: “The path of the just is as a shining light,³ while that leading to the Kingdom of heaven is referred to in these words: ‘There is a path which no bird knows and which the vulture’s eye has not seen, the lion’s pups have not walked on it, nor the fierce lion passed by on it.⁴‘”⁵

Here again, we find that birds and lions were used by Jewish teachers as metaphors for people, with the bird being representative of normal Jewish people, the vultures are Pharisees and Sadducees, and the lion pups represent the priest, and the grown lions are the leading priests. Likewise, in one Jewish commentary Rabbis talk about this kingdom as follows: “’I have created somethings in pairs,’ says God, ‘such as heaven and earth, the sun and the moon, Adam and Eve, male and female in all animals, this life and the future life; but I am One.’ He that proclaims the absolute unity of God proclaims the kingdom of heaven.”⁶ Then another Rabbi interjects: “The phrase which we have in our ritual, ‘Blessed be His name, whose glorious kingdom is for ever and ever,’ Moses brought down from heaven, where he heard these words from the angels when worshiping the LORD. We therefore utter this praise silently, being unworthy to use the praise which angels employ in their worship of God. On the Day of Atonement, however, when we shut the door to the outer world, when we seek after holiness, when indeed it is with us a day on which we are meant to be one with God, then we are like angels, and we are permitted to proclaim these words aloud.”⁷ And again: “God says to Israel, ‘You are called my children, but you must take my law as your guide of life.’ It is as though a prince should ask his father to make it known throughout his kingdom that he is the king’s son. The father tells him: ‘Clothe yourself in purple and put on your crown; then all will know that you are my son.”⁸ It is hard to miss how many references were to the kingdom of God and His Son. For the Jews, they never considered Jesus to be any part of this, but for Christians we see how God, through His Spirit, used their words to proclaim the coming of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah.

The Kingdom of God is used over sixty times in the New Testament while Kingdom of Heaven is used 31 times. We must be clear that the concept of the Kingdom of God refers neither to a place nor time, but to conditions and controls used by God as the ruler and King over His willing subjects, to bring about the restoration of His relationship with mankind that He had in the Garden of Eden so that He can make people who accept His offer of salvation free from sin, death, hell, and forever in the grave. In order for this kingdom to function here on earth, it must exist in the hearts and minds of His children until He can cleanse the earth in order for it to exist into the future. So when Jesus used this phrase, “Kingdom of Heaven,” you should now have a better idea of what went through the minds of His Jewish listeners.

That’s why the preaching of John the Baptizer and Jesus on the kingdom of heaven was not a foreign subject to their Jewish listeners, but the way they explained it and the method required to become part of it pointed toward the Messianic age. Both John the Baptizer and Jesus emphasized the need for repentance. The question was, did the Jews accept the scriptural way of repentance or that of their traditional sayings? We find this in a discussion among some Rabbis, where one of them said: “Three acts nullify harsh punishment, and they are these: prayer, charity, and repentance. And all three of them are to be derived from a single verse of Scripture: ‘If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.’⁹ The Rabbi then gives the exegesis: ‘Pray’― this refers to prayer. ‘And seek my face’― this refers to charity, as you say, ‘As for me, I will behold Your face in righteousness; when I awake, I will be satisfied with behold Your form’.¹⁰ ‘And turn from their wicked ways’― this refers to repentance.”¹¹ Another thing to note is that these are not the exact words of John the Baptizer himself, but a summary of his message as Matthew heard it, and his belief that these words of Isaiah applied to John the Baptizer’s preaching and ministry.¹²

John the Baptizer fulfilling Isaiah’s message was quite clear, but when reading it in our standard English version it was not so pronounced. One respected Rabbi comments on this verse by saying: “A voice: The Holy Spirit calls, “In the desert, the way to Jerusalem.” clear the way of the Lord: for her exiles to return to her midst.¹³ But in another edition of this saying it reads: Clear the way of the Lord: The way of Jerusalem for her exiles to return to her midst.”¹⁴ It also echos the Messianic tone that we find in Zechariah: “Then Adonai will be king over the whole world. On that day Adonai will be the only one, and His name will be the only name.”¹⁵ It has also been noted by Jewish scholars that the term “heaven” was a respectful way of substituting for the name “God” because they did not like saying that name for fear of misusing it. As a matter of fact, in most Jewish literature today you will always find it spelled “G-d.” This is to avoid any possible use of God’s name in vain as they interpret the third commandment.¹⁶

Verse 4: “John’s clothes were made from camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. For food, he ate locusts and wild honey.”

John was considered a recluse who seemed to come out of nowhere and was known for wearing clothes woven from camel’s hair, and a leather belt around his waist, while living off of locust and honey made from wild-dates. It appears that John took his choice of raiment from one of Israel’s most revered prophets. In the Old Testament we read where some men were trying to find out who a certain man was that they saw, so they said to the king of Judah: “This man was wearing a hairy coat with a leather belt around his waist. Then Ahaziah said, ‘That was Elijah the Tishbite‘.”¹⁷ But the Jewish people saw more value in camel-haired clothing than just providing the wearer with a prophetic look. On the subject of what clothing can be contaminated with leprosy, the Rabbis say, “If camel’s hair and sheep’s wool have been woven together and most of it is camel’s hair, the wearer cannot become unclean by touching a leper.”¹⁸ Also, another Rabbi taught: “If camel’s hair and sheep’s wool are woven together and most of it is camel’s hair, this is permitted to be mixed with linen and it will still be leprosy proof.”¹⁹ And in another reading it also mentions camel hair as being among those things from which regular clothing can be made.²⁰ Then in a Jewish commentary we read where one Rabbi said: “…the LORD GOD made garments for Adam and Eve. That they were made from wool of camels and the fur of rabbits.”²¹

Then we move on to what John the Baptizer had for a diet. First, we should note that the word for “locust” in the Greek is very similar to the word for the “bean of the carob plant” out of which bread was made. As such, bread made out of the carob bean and wild honey would make more sense than fried locust dipped in honey. But we also have another option, and that comes from fragments in the lost “Gospel of the Ebionites.” The Greek word for locusts is also very similar to the Hebrew word for “honey cake” that described the “manna” that the Israelites ate in the desert in the days of Moses. This “bread from heaven” is described as “like coriander seed, white, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.”²² This wafer baked in oil, and sweetened with honey resembling a rice cake, would emulate the desert wanderings of Israel when the people had to look to God alone for “daily bread.” But some scholars take a cue from the Scripture that says: “You may also eat all kinds of locusts, all kinds of winged locusts, all kinds of crickets, and all kinds of grasshoppers,”²³ as a hint that was in fact what John the Baptizer was eating. Not only that, but when dealing with what type of food the people were allowed to eat the Rabbis said: “Of locust; all that have four legs, four wings, leaping legs, and wings covered the greater part of the body, are clean. Rabbi Jose says, it must also bear the name locust.”²⁴ So John the Baptizer would have certainly been within his kosher limits to eat such insects.

When it comes to the wild honey, we are told by Jewish agriculturalists that this was perhaps “date honey,” a dark sweet syrup made from dates. Since bees did not live out in the barren desert, some think this is the answer. Also, it takes flowers for the bees to make honey, and there are none of those in the wilderness either. However, Matthew said that John the Baptizer began ministering “out in the desert area” of Judea. If that were some desolate wasteland, it would be hard to get people to go to such a remote place to hear any prophet. Besides, John the Baptizer needed water to augment his ministry. Matthew doesn’t say exactly where in the Judean desert. Therefore, a great number of scholars believe that Matthew used this as a generic term to identify any region significantly removed from major urban areas. Therefore this would qualify as a place mentioned by the apostle John in his Gospel called “Bethany on the other side of the Jordan River.”²⁵ In that area, bee honey would certainly be a possibility, as well as the date honey. Most scholars believe John the Baptizer chose this Essene type of lifestyle so that he would be less tempted and influenced by the culture of big cities, and be able to dedicate himself wholly to his calling, mission and prophetic task.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER THREE

Part I (con’t)

In other Jewish writings we find that such rural areas served a special purpose. Some Rabbis taught that parts of the agrarian areas were fit only for breeding cattle.¹ But these farming areas were also thought of as the exporter of good things. There is an interesting phrase in the Song of Solomon that requires deciphering in order to fully understand what he was talking about. It reads: “Daughters of Jerusalem, I am dark and beautiful.”² In a Jewish commentary on this verse, a Rabbi offers an explanation that the term “black” or “dark” is another way of saying, “bad” or “disobedient.” And the term “beautiful, is a metaphor for overcoming this dark mindset and bad behavior through God’s grace. In other words, God was still able to make something beautiful out of their lives in spite of the damage sin may have caused.

According to the Rabbis, one of those instances was their dark days in Egypt,³ but that was countered by their beautiful delivery through the Red Sea.⁴ Another was their dark behavior in the wilderness by constantly complaining about food and water,⁵ but the beauty that came when Moses cried out to the Lord and He answered by providing just what they needed.⁶ And on another occasion when their dark attitude provoked God in the wilderness,⁷ yet God’s presence and Shekinah glory in front of the tabernacle brought back their beauty.⁸ Then again, the dark day when the spies came back out of Canaan with a bad report,⁹ and yet Joshua and Caleb showed the beauty of faith.¹⁰ Then it is explained by looking at the disobedience of Achan, yet the beauty brought back by the obedience of Phineas.¹¹ And finally, in the words of one Rabbi about Israel’s transformation: “I am made beautiful by Joshua. The kings of Israel rendered me black, but the kings of Judah rendered me beautiful. And although I am a mixture of blackness and beauty, through all these enumerated events and conditions of things, I am perfected in beauty by my prophets.”¹²

So in other words, many things came out of the barren areas of that region; the Law, the Tabernacle; the Sanhedrin; the Priesthood; the Office of Levites; the Kingdom of Israel; and all the good gifts which God gave to His people. No wonder John the Baptizer’s appearance in this rural area east of Jericho, just like Moses’ leadership in the desert of Sinai, was seen as a good thing by many who believed that he was sent of God to announce the coming of the Messiah. But when we look at the topography of that region, sometimes the term was used to identify areas some distance from cities or towns rather than a barren wilderness. We have such a phrase in English which we refer to as the boondocks, to describe the backwoods, hinterlands, or rural areas, which are thinly inhabited yet blossoming full of life. This will help us understand exactly what John the Baptizer meant when he called for making a new way in the wilderness that became a metaphor for the Jews’ lack of faith, weak belief, and self-centered service to God. And what a metaphor for those Christians delivered from sin’s bondage who were once close to God, but now seem to be living in a wilderness because of their separation from Him in their faith and practice. This may be what Peter had in mind when he spoke of coming out of darkness into His marvelous.¹³

Verses 2-3: “John said, ‘Repent now, because God’s kingdom is now very near.’ John is the one Isaiah the prophet was talking about when he said, ‘There is someone shouting: “In the desert, prepare the way for the Lord. Make a straight road for Him.’”

It is not unusual to see a cartoon in newspapers or magazines of some disheveled, bearded individual holding a sign or carrying boards strapped to their shoulders with the words “Repent!” written on them. I’ve seen them myself on the streets of New York City in Times Square. Not only do 98% of those who see these cartoons or signs not understand what repent means, but I dare say that 80% of those who draw them and carry them, along with Christians in the pew, do not understand the word when used in a sermon. Talk to a number of them and they will describe the scene of a person either standing, or on their knees, before the altar, weeping and crying as they cry out to God for forgiveness of their sins. While this certainly is an emotional norm and commensurate with repentance, it does not truly define repentance.

It not only means turning to God for forgiveness, but simultaneously turning away from one’s sinning when asking God for forgiveness, with the intent of never sinning again. The Greek word used here literally means to: “change one’s mindset,” “to have a complete change of heart.” But since Matthew wrote this in Hebrew, we find a similar expression in Ezekiel: “Therefore, house of Isra’el, I will judge each of you according to his ways,’ says Adonai Elohim. ‘Repent, and turn yourselves away from all your transgressions, so that they will not be a stumbling-block that brings guilt upon you,’”¹⁴ In the context of what both Jesus and John the Baptizer preached, it meant “turning” from one’s sin of disobedience and “returning” to God in obedience. Note the combination of turning “from” and turning “to.” And what makes this so remarkable is that turning from one’s sins is impossible unless at the same time one turns to God — otherwise one will only turn from one set of sins to another!

One Jewish scholar says: “The Jewish understanding of repentance on this point is that each individual must do it, yet it requires God’s grace to be able to do it — “Turn us to You, O ADONAI, and turned we will be.¹⁵”¹⁶ Another Jewish translation puts it this way: “Adonai, turn us back to you; and we will come back.”¹⁷ I offer my own translation here: “ADONAI, turn us around so we can come back to You.” According to some Jewish literature, it is not without justification then that when a liberal Jew, raised with little knowledge of Judaism, later adopts a conservative Jewish lifestyle, he is termed by other Jews as having mastered repentance, that is, one who has “completely turned” from his nonobservant ways and “wholly returned” to serving God in the manner prescribed by Orthodox Judaism.

In modern Christianity this was often the case when a backslider returns to God and began living according the teachings of God’s Word. With this understanding, perhaps we can better grasp the message that John the Baptizer and Jesus preached and why the leading priests were so against it. They felt there was no need for such repentance. They were already living a holy and responsible life according to God’s laws. Besides, if they approved of what John the Baptizer was preaching as right, they were then labeling what they preached as wrong. Jesus also preached concerning the Kingdom of God as John did. However, with one stark difference. When John was asked about this Kingdom, he could only point toward Christ and say: “He is the way”. But when Jesus was asked, He was able to explain and quickly preempt anyone else’s definition by pointing to Himself and stating: “I am the way!” I have found in my own ministry that when it comes to backsliders, the most difficult thing they must overcome is not that they have sinned, nor that they need forgiveness, but that by coming back to God it is an open admission they had done wrong. This was also the major obstacle keeping the Pharisees from accepting Jesus as their Savior.

The portion quoted by Matthew about the voice crying out is found in Isaiah. Matthew did not use this referral as a quote with a hidden message. Rather, to him it was Isaiah speaking prophetically of John the Baptizer. However, the standard rendering in the King James Version: “The voice of him that cries in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make a straight highway in the desert for our God,’”¹⁸ has promoted a serious misinterpretation of the text. We find this same understanding echoed in Greek writings: “But when a voice shall through the desert land come bearing tidings to men, and to all shall call to make straight paths, and from the heart cast wickedness out and illuminate with water all the bodies of mankind, that being born again they may no more from what is righteous go at all astray.”¹⁹ The Hebrew actually reads, “A voice cries out: ‘Clear a road through the desert for Adonai! Level a highway in the desert for our God!’”²⁰ In fact, the oldest known Hebrew copy of Matthew’s Gospel puts it this way: “A voice of one crying, in the desert prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the wilderness a path for our God.”²¹ That’s why newer English translations have rendered it this way: “A voice of one calling: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”²² One portion of Isaiah reads: “Listen, there is someone shouting: ‘Prepare a way in the desert for the Lord. Make a straight road there for our God. Every valley must be filled. Every mountain and hill should be made flat. The crooked roads should be made straight, and the rough ground made smooth. Then the Glory of the Lord will be shown to everyone. Together, all people will see it.’ Yes, this is what the Lord Himself said!”²³

To understand this declaration, we must remind ourselves that the desert, road, mountain and hills are metaphors for the Jews spiritual journey and their compliance with laws, rites and rituals. It was another way of saying that a new way to salvation was coming with direct access to God, and they were called upon to be ready and open-minded to receive the Good News in order to travel that road. So we can see that the crier is not in the wilderness crying out, but is crying out for a path to be made in the wilderness. That the term “wilderness” becomes a metaphor for the barren wasteland of belief and understanding of God, His Word, and His true plan of salvation. This is borne out by the fact that Jesus did not arrive at the Jordan for baptism from the wilderness, but He came down from Galilee where He had been raised and was living since the age of five.²⁴

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER THREE

Part I

Verse 1: “It was around this time that John the Baptizer began delivering his message from God to the people. This was out in the rural area of Judea.”

To better understand what “baptizer” means here, let’s look at it from a Jewish perspective. According to the Torah (Genesis – Deuteronomy), one had to be ritually pure before entering the Tabernacle, and later the Temple, or to participate in any festivals. That’s because ritual purity could be lost in many ways by what one ate, touched, or was exposed to. Because of this, washing became the preeminent means of restoring one’s external purity. This matter is frequently mentioned in the Book of Leviticus.¹ Also, in the Jewish writings of the Rabbis, there are many chapters devoted to this subject.²

According to one Jewish scholar, the origin of this purification rite points back to Adam and Eve’s transgression in the Garden of Eden.³ A person who immerses himself in this bath participates in an obvious, living metaphor of purification, with the water, as it were, washing away the impurity brought on by Adam and Eve’s disobedience. Even though today there is no longer a Temple, observant Jews still immerse themselves in a ritual bath in obedience to the law.⁴ Keep this in mind each time you read about baptism in the New Testament so that the purpose of water baptism under the new covenant has more meaning.

Here, John the Baptizer proclaims that the old practice of immersion now has a new context: being cleansed internally from the impurities of one’s external sins. If there was anything that caused conflict between Jesus and the purity-minded Pharisees, it was on this point. Jesus had the audacity to say that no such outward cleansing could rinse away the inward filth of hypocrisy, lying, cheating and pretension that they practiced in their prayers and worship. When our Lord’s most quoted prophet said: “Come now,” says Adonai, “let’s talk this over together. Even if your sins are red like scarlet, they will be white as snow; even if they are red as crimson, they will be while like wool,”⁵ I’m sure He understood the deeper meaning of that cleansing power, and it wasn’t water.

We should also look at John the Baptizer’s choice of the rural area of Judea as the region for his ministry. We know that the Judean Desert lies southeast of Jerusalem and descends to the Dead Sea. It was in the southern part of this area where the Dead Sea Scrolls were first discovered in 1946, in what were identified as the Qumran Caves. The scrolls have been tied to an ancient Jewish sect that was well-known in John the Baptizer’s day called the “Essenes”, a branch of the Pharisees who conformed to the most rigid rules of Levitical purity while aspiring to the highest degree of holiness. They lived solely by the work of their hands and in a state of communal life, dedicating their time to study and devotion and to the practice of benevolence, and refrained as far as feasible from conjugal intercourse and sensual pleasures, in order to be initiated into the highest mysteries of heaven and help the expected Messianic time to come sooner. Some scholars believe that John the Baptizer was under their tutelage and thus his preaching and lifestyle resembled what is found in these scrolls.

Since John the Baptizer was the son of a priest, as were many of the Essenes, he would have fit in their commune nicely. However, that does not take away, nor add anything significant to, John’s ministry. The translators of the KJV chose to render the Greek word “baptistēs” as “baptist” instead of “baptizer” which is what the Greek noun means: “the one who baptizes.” As a matter of fact, Josephus wrote about him after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and refers to him as “John, that was called the baptizer.”⁶ So he was well-known by the Jews as the one who went around baptizing those who responded to his call for repentance. It was also recognized that this baptizer had emerged from the rural area of Judea. It should cause any reader to ask, “Why?” Why didn’t he go to the cities, especially Jerusalem.

Some of this will be answered later on as we study the life and ministry of John the Baptizer. But first, we are told quite explicitly: “It was the 15th year of the rule of Tiberius Caesar. These men were under Caesar: Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea; Herod, the ruler of Galilee; Philip, Herod’s brother, the ruler of Iturea and Trachonitis; Lysanias, the ruler of Abilene. Annas and Caiaphas were the high priests. During this time, John, the son of Zechariah, was living in the desert, and he received a message from God.”⁷ This helps us see what the political climate was. And second, his preaching such a gospel in the large city of Jerusalem or Capernaum could easily have caused not only the Jewish leaders to have him silenced, but the Romans as well. And thirdly, with the method of his ministry being anchored in water baptism, he needed a river so he could initiate all those who believed, into their new way of living for God.

A leading Jewish philosopher who lived during John the Baptizer’s era writes about this religious sect called the Essenes. As you read this, see how much you think it may have influenced what John the Baptizer preached and practiced.

“Palestine and Syria are not empty when it comes to exemplary wisdom and virtue. These countries include a large portion of the most populous portion that the Jews inhabit. There is a group the Jews called Essenes, who number over four thousand, as far as I know, and who derive their name from their pious living, because they are more than most men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity. In the first place, these men live in villages, avoiding all cities on account of the habitual lawlessness of those who inhabit them, well knowing that such a moral disease is contracted by associating with sinful men, just as a real disease might be contracted from an impure atmosphere, and that this would stamp an incurable evil on their souls. Of these men, some cultivating the earth, and others devoting themselves to those arts which are the result of peace, benefit both themselves and all those who come in contact with them, not storing up treasures of silver and of gold, nor acquiring vast sections of the earth out of a desire for ample revenues, but providing all things which are requisite for the natural purpose of being alive; for they more than any inhabitants of this land did not come from poor and destitute families, but rather they chose to live in poverty by their own design and ways of life than from any real deficiency of good fortune. Nevertheless, they are considered to be very rich when you judge them by their contentment and prudent living, which they have in great abundance. Among those men you will find no makers of arrows, or javelins, or swords, or helmets, or breastplates, or shields; no makers of arms or of military engines of combat; no one, in short, attending to any employment whatsoever connected with war, or even to any of those occupations even in peace which are easily perverted for wicked purposes; for they are utterly ignorant of all trade, and of all commercial dealings, and of all navigation. Instead, they renounce and stay away from everything which can possibly afford any inducement to greed; and there is not a single slave among them, but they are all free, aiding one another with a reciprocal interchange of doing each others jobs; and they condemn masters, not only as unjust, inasmuch as they corrupt the very principle of equality, but likewise as impious, because they destroy the ordinances of nature, which made them all equal, and brought them up like a mother, as if they were all legitimate brethren, not in name only, but in reality and truth. But in their view this natural relationship of all men to one another has been thrown into disorder by designing envy, continually wishing to surpass others in good fortune, and which has therefore engendered alienation instead of affection, and hatred instead of harmony; and avoiding the logical arguments of philosophy, deeming it as not necessary for the acquisition of virtue, leaving it to the word-catchers. And discard the intent of philosophy as being too sublime for human nature to master, leaving it to those who love to converse about complicated arguments (except, of course, any study that causes one to contemplate the existence of God and of the creation of the universe), devoting all their attention to the moral part of philosophy, using as instructors the laws of their country which it would have been impossible for the human mind to devise without divine inspiration. Now these laws they are taught at various times, but most often on the seventh day, for the seventh day is accounted sacred, on which they abstain from all other work, and frequent the sacred places which are called synagogues, and there they sit according to their age in classes, the younger ones sitting on the floor and listening to the older ones on the platform with eager attention in their order of worship. Then one of them takes up the holy scroll and reads from it. Then those who possess the greatest experience come forward and explain what was not easy to understand, since a great many precepts are delivered in puzzling modes of expression, and allegorically, as the old fashion has been; and thus the people are taught piety, and holiness, and justice, and efficiency, and the science of regulating the state, and the knowledge of such things as are naturally good, or bad, or indifferent, and to choose what is right and to avoid what is wrong, using a threefold variety of definitions, and rules, and criteria, namely, the love of God, and the love of virtue, and the love of mankind. Accordingly, the sacred scrolls present an infinite number of instances to express one’s devotion to the love of God, and of a continued and uninterrupted purity throughout one’s whole of lifetime, of a careful avoidance of swearing and of lies, and of a strict adherence to the principle of looking up to God as the cause of everything which is good and of nothing which is evil. They also furnish us with many proofs of a love of virtue, such as abstinence from all covetousness of money, from ambition, from indulgence in pleasures, temperance, endurance, and also moderation, simplicity, good temper, the absence of pride, obedience to the laws, steadiness, and everything of that kind; and, lastly, they bring forward as proof of the love of mankind, goodwill, equality beyond all power of description, and fellowship, about which it is not unreasonable to say a few words. In the first place, there is no one who owns a house as private property. Rather, they treat it as belonging to every one: for besides that they all dwell together in companies, the house is open to all those of the same mindset, who come to them from other parts of the country; then there is one storage place among them all; their expenses are all in common; their garments do not belong to each individual but are in common by everyone; all their food is shared equally, since they all eat in the same dining area. There is no other people among which you can find a common use of the same house, a common adoption of one mode of living, and a common use of the same table more thoroughly established in fact than among this tribe: and is not this very natural? For whatever they, after having worked all day, receive their wages, do not retain as their own but place it into a common account, and give any advantage that is to be derived from it to all who desire to avail themselves of it; and those who are sick are not neglected because they are unable to contribute to the common account, inasmuch as the tribe have in their public reserves a means of supplying their necessities and aiding their weakness, so that from their ample means they support them liberally and abundantly; and they cherish respect for their elders, and honor them and care for them, just as parents are honored and cared for by their lawful children: being supported by them in all abundance both by their personal exertions, and by innumerable contrivances.”⁸

We have no Gospel record that John the Baptizer was ever married or that he had any children. Even during the height of his ministry, we find no reference to the fact that his mother and father were there supporting him. Since John the Baptizer and Jesus both lived in the same area of Galilee as boys, and the fact that John’s mother and Jesus’ mother were cousins, they no doubt received a lot of information on how their son John the Baptizer was doing. His lifestyle and manners made him clearly a candidate for the Essene commune, whether he was one or not we do not know.

ATTENTION ALL FAMILY, FRIENDS, FOLLOWERS, AND STUDENTS!

We just finished Chapter 2 of Matthew’s Gospel.  For some, you learned that the visitors from the east who came to see the new king of the Jews were never referred to as kings in scripture, nor does it say there were only three of them.

In fact, earlier versions of Matthew’s writings call them magi, and based on historical texts may even be called Priestly Persian Astrologers.  Also, they might have gotten their clue about this new king from the Jewish Scriptures in the story of Balaam.

Furthermore, various writers from that period tell us what a wicked and ruthless king Herod was, and why his slaughter of the innocent boys in the Bethlehem area fit well with his despicable character.

So what is next in the greatest story ever told?  On Monday we begin Chapter 3, and find out that after the priestly astrologers, the next most important figure in the life of Jesus was one of His relatives by the name of John, who was also known as a very famous baptizer.

See you on Monday, as we go down the unfamiliar road together.

If an atheist tells you they don’t believe there is a God, then ask them if they believe there is no God. If they say “yes”, tell them it is impossible to believe nothing, because belief requires faith, and faith is the evidence of things unseen. Therefore they really are saying they refuse to believe in what they cannot see. But just because you can’t see it, does not mean it doesn’t exist. For instance, love and joy. And if they ask you to prove there is a God, tell them you’ll do so as soon as they prove there isn’t one. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

In my studies of Philosophy, I came across this concept expressed by a Jewish Philosopher back in Medieval times. There are five different theories concerning Divine Providence; they are all ancient, known since the time of the Prophets, when the true Law was revealed to enlighten these dark regions of understanding.

First Theory.— The theory of man’s perfectly free will. According to this principle man does what is in his power to do, by his nature, his choice, and his will; and his action is not due to any faculty created for the purpose. This is the theory of Judaism. All species of irrational animals likewise move by their own free will. This is the Will of God; that is to say, it is due to the eternal divine will that all living beings should move freely, and that man should have power to act according to his will or choice within the limits of his capacity. Another fundamental principle taught by the Law of Moses is this: Wrong cannot be ascribed to God in any way whatever; all evils and afflictions as well as all kinds of happiness of man, whether they concern one individual person or a community, are distributed according to justice; they are the result of strict judgment that admits no wrong whatever. Even when a person suffers pain in consequence of a thorn having entered into his hand, although it is at once drawn out, it is a punishment that has been inflicted on him [for sin], and the least pleasure he enjoys is a reward [for some good action]; all this is meted out by strict justice; as is said in Scripture, “all his ways are judgment” (Deuteronomy 32:4); we are ignorant of how that judgment works. (1393-1273 BC)

Second Theory.— Whilst one part of the Universe owes its existence to Providence, and is under the control of a ruler and governor, another part is abandoned and left to chance. This is the view of Aristotle. (384-322 BC)

Third Theory.— There is no Providence at all for anything in the Universe; all parts of the Universe, the heavens and what they contain, owe their origin to accident and chance; there exists no being that rules and governs them or provides for them. This is the theory of Epicurus. ( Founded in 307 BC)

Fourth Theory.— Man has free will; it is therefore intelligible that the Law contains commands and prohibitions, with announcements of reward and punishment. All acts of God are due to wisdom; no injustice is found in Him, and He does not afflict those who are good. The Mu’tazila Islamic school of theology profess this theory. (8^th Century AD)

Fifth Theory.— This theory is the reverse of the second. According to this theory, there is nothing in the whole Universe, neither a class nor an individual being, that is due to chance; everything is the result of will, intention, and rule. It is a matter of course that he who rules must know [that which is under His control]. The Sunni Muslim school of Ashariyah adheres to this theory. (10^th Century AD)

So the next time you are asked to give an explanation on why the unthinkable happened to someone you think it should have never happened to, which of these explanations would you offer?