Instead of Christ

The story of the capture of Jesus is compelling even for the 1001st time. As I was listening to a godly lady explain it at a children's ministry, the truth again hit me. She told of the betrayal by Judas. His associate led the soldiers to the teacher, identifying him with a kiss. The disciple had expected a messiah who would liberate the Jews from Roman rule, and who would then take power. When it became clear Jesus would not do this, Judas felt betrayed. He wanted his share of power. He was after all in charge of the money for the group. So the treasurer went out and sold what he had- the knowledge of where to find Him.

She told of Peter, a genuine friend who had promised he would never deny him, but would die with him instead, if necessary. How he had, as Jesus prophesied he would, denied Him three times before the cock crowed.... Of course in his defense, I wanted to say, Jesus told him to put his sword away. Peter was willing to die with Him, but he did think it fair to put up some resistance. He even followed to see what happened, while others just ran away. Nevertheless, he denied Him three times: that he was His friend, that he had been with Him, etc.

She told of Pontius Pilate, the Roman who judged the case. He didn't believe Jesus to be guilty of any sin. He tried to argue with the crowd. But the people were infiltrated by enemies-friends of the high priests and those who wanted Jesus dead. Group think, crowd manipulation, the masses who just a few days before celebrated Him, declaring Him king as He entered Jerusalem, fell to peer pressure to ask for His death. And Pilate gave in, though in his heart knowing Him innocent.

She didn't tell of Barabbas, a rabble rouser, murderer, thief, and rebel who did want to overthrow the Romans. Pilate had offered the crowd the gift of one life to be spared, and offered the choice between Christ and Barabbas. The wise choice would have been Jesus-the gentle Soul who healed folks, doing miracles, and against none had He sinned. Pilate had assumed they would take the best one. But the evil in the heart of man led them to release the murderer.

Nor did she mention that He died between two thieves. She's just starting to tell it, leading up to Easter. So I'm sure she'll get there. It took a long time just to relate what she did. "But," she asked, "What did Jesus do? Did He murder anyone? Was He a thief having stolen someone's goods? Did He take anyone prisoner such as in kidnapping, or rape? Did He hurt anyone in any way?" She pointed out the answer to each question is no. Nor did He commit adultery, or do anything according to Jewish laws that was illegal, deserving of death. (Other than claiming to be God-which would be blasphemy if it were not true. There was also the charge for which the Jews took Him to the Romans, claiming to be their king-the Messiah. However, He'd explained to Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world, so they had no basis to worry about his fomenting rebellion.)

The lesson concluded as she explained that Jesus had the power to remove Himself from their control. Yet He'd chosen to allow it, so that He could take our punishment. The righteous response to awareness of this is thankfulness. Yet, hard hearted as I am, I thought otherwise. Fear, disloyalty, peer pressure, jealousy these killed Jesus.

Even worse I continued: theft, rape, murder these could be levelled against Mohammed by a judge, and killing him would have been just. Why couldn't the story have concluded with him being killed, and Jesus let go? That in my mind would have been fair. But Mohammed wasn't imprisoned, beaten, and killed. He'd been allowed to go his way. But the sins Mohammed may have confessed, (we do know he regularly spent time in prayer confessing sin and seeking forgiveness) and those we all commit were what killed our Lord. And Jesus agreed to it. If not, we (all who claim Him as Savior) would still be in our sins, unforgiven.

It boggles the mind, but thank you, Lord. That is what "amazing grace" means. I deserve death, as do all, instead of Christ. I do not deserve forgiveness (filled as I am with fear, disloyalty, etc.,) but I receive the gift in awe of the love that could go to such extremes. And recommend to all that regularly seek forgiveness to go to the one place where forgiveness is attainable, promised, and verified.

Witnesses through the ages vouch for the efficacy of knowing their sins wiped away. The peace that surpasses all understanding is well documented, as is the power to heal,to deliver from bondages, to make a new creature from an old and weary sinner. The power to overcome is not a one time deal. It is regularly available to all who cry out, who seek the Lord who gives the gift, and will abide in Him. We cannot produce this fruit outside of regular communion with Him because He is the one who creates it. He is the one we proudly proclaim as our Intercessor. The One we cannot deny. Selah.

resolving confusion

Several weeks ago while reading my Bible late at night, I felt led to address a study that I knew caused you some difficulty. I do not remember if it was in that Muslim apologetics book, The Choice, or something my son-in-law had mentioned. But apparently it was a stumbler that the list of the twelve apostles were not the same in all Biblical sources.

I had heard the issue discussed over the years, with several suggestions. One suggested that some men may have come and gone. Another standard reason offered was that many in the Scriptures go by multiple names. Matthew is called by that name in addition to Levi. Jesus gave the name Peter to Simon. Barnabas is another example, a nickname. So perhaps, they suggested, the discrepancy was based on our not knowing everyone's nickname. They lived in a multi-lingual society, so Hebrew, Greek (Aramaic), and Latin may have all been used. The gospels are written in Aramaic, after all.)

Curious, I noted the places where the lists are found, in Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13. The list is the same for Luke and Acts, as Luke wrote both. Then Matthew and Mark hold identical versions, so that tends to lend accuracy by verifying each other. Because Luke said he had gone to great lengths in order to search out the truth and provide complete assurance of accuracy, one has to give credence to his versions too. What to do?

The idea for the study stemmed from my reading in Acts, so I started with the premise that Matthew was a replacement, as it documents. However, the tax collector is noted to have been with them from the beginning. (That was a requirement for being considered for the position of replacement disciple.) The other sources mention Matthew as well, in their lists of the disciples. The question then arises, how can he be a replacement when he is listed as one of the originals?

The answer I came to was that the gospels do not discuss the process, just the results. (And sometimes they switch from past to present-Jesus did.... The list of disciples is....) They tell of how Jesus called Matthew from being a tax collector. They mention that he was a disciple that was sent out, along with the others.

They confirm that he had the experience needed to be respected and listened to. Now this is essential as he is among the scribes who have been working to record the amazing things that have occured. One would not want to leave him discredited. They were not changing the record. They all knew Matthew had been with them, fully trained by Jesus. They were merely affirming him, so as not to add to the confusion. (Editing what is included is important. Sometimes less is more.)

So Matthew and Mark, list one person not on all the lists-Thaddeus. Luke lists another in both books-Judas the son of James. I do not believe the others would have fought over it: make sure you list my name, make sure I get all the credit. Not after having Jesus lecture them over the issue of who was most important. Not after He has washed their feet to teach them humility, not to mention died for their sins. It just was not important, really. All were listed totally, though.

So the list of apostles is as follows:
Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John the sons of Zebedee, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddeus, Judas the son of James, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot, then Matthew. Thus we have thirteen and no more, which is as it should be. (We have neither added nor lost any disciples listed in Scripture.) And we cannot fault the writers as sloppy. The Bible says holy men of old were led of the Spirit to write what they did. And the Spirit included everyone.

Another note, sometimes the Spirit leads to do things we do not always understand, or even agree with at times. But if we are obedient, sometimes we get to see later why it was right that we did it. Other times, we just take it on faith. But this is another subject and I digress.


What about Paul? One might ask.
And yet we have the Apostle Paul, whom the risen Jesus selected and trained. However, this apostle made no claims to having been with Jesus from the beginning of his earthly ministry. He submitted his teachings before the others for their verification, that these concepts were in line with what the witnesses knew had been taught. With their approval, then he went forth in much power and authority. But that was a special appointment, the story of which is included within the book of Acts. Luke, the Greek doctor so committed to accuracy, became Paul's companion in many of the missionary travels. And Peter verified the writings of Paul, calling them Scriptures. These all form a whole, and thus there is no discrepancy.