Judas

How sustainable is the argument that Judas was not wanting to betray Jesus but was rather trying to precipitate a crisis so that Jesus' messiahship would be forced to into the open? This has been a view of a few but has little support with most Christians. What are the arguments in support of such a view?

1. The remorse he felt when Jesus did not resist arrest but went willingly to be crucified. Judas' suicide is taken to mean that the result of his betrayal was not what he expected.

I do not find any other support for such a view of Judas' betrayal.

What are the arguments against such a view?

1. The fact that the apostles were unsympathetic to Judas and saw it as a simple betrayal for money
2. John (John 12:6) says that Judas was a thief supporting the view that once he lost faith in Jesus' pacifist ways he decided to convert Jesus into money.
3. The view is pure speculation as it has no Biblical documentation.

What probably happened?

1. After the feeding of the 5000 Jesus' teaching was focused on preparing the apostles for the event of the cross. He teachings were focused on what it means to live the life of the cross in your day to day to life. It would appear that this teaching led Judas to lose faith.
2. The anointing of Mary may have been a turning point - when he saw Jesus majoring on non-essentials on (adulation of women) and ignoring the essentials the liberation of the Jews. After the period of popularity (which Judas probably saw as the laying of the foundation of a following) Jesus' teaching changed tack and He lost a lot of followers - John 6:66. This loss of followers would have raised many queries in Judas' mind about the intention of Jesus.
3. When he came to betray Jesus, one look by Jesus into his eyes (speculative) must have shattered him just as Peter's betrayal shattered Peter.

I do not see any need for speculation on Judas' motive when the Bible says .

Divorce

It has been debated that Jesus in Matthew 19:8 has said that Moses had given the permission to divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1 because of the hardness of the heart of the Jews and this was not God's will. That obviously creates a problem as it implies that the Old Testament is not a true reflection of God's will. So is Jesus, like in the Sermon on the Mount, re-interpreting the Law of Moses or is He changing the Law of Moses?

In Deuteronomy 24:1 the wording reads as follows:- "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her:" The word for 'uncleanness' is 'erwah which means 'nudity'. The same word is used in Leviticus 18 and is translated as 'nakedness' meaning to have sexual relationships with. The same word could also mean something shameful.

So two school of thought was there amongst the Jews - one which believed that divorce was permissible for infidelity and one who believed it was permissible for anything shameful. Jesus, in His answer sides with the first interpretation and so he is not saying that Moses was wrong but that he is being interpreted wrongly. This wrong interpretation is because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews.

Some however do not accept the Matthean exception which permits divorce for adultery and insists that Malachi 2:16 us absolute when it says "God hates divorce". However for us who believe in the inspiration of the scriptures we have no problem with the Matthean exception.

The Pauline in I Corinthians 7 exception has proved more controversial. Paul says in I Corinthians 7:10-11 that while divorce was not permissible, separation was. So some spouses have walked out on the basis of this verse.  I do not think that this verse is a permission to separate, but rather a ban on a second marriage if one has waled out on the first.

More controversial is the interpretation of I Corinthians 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases". What does it mean to say that if ones spouse leaves him/her he/she is not under bondage. Does it mean that if you have been abandoned by your spouse you are free to remarry? That is how I have interpreted it, but many conservative scholars do not agree.

In other words, according to Paul, if you walk out on your spouse you cannot remarry, but if your spouse walks out on you, you can.

Of course none of this is meant to be read with an intention to walk out on ones spouse, but with a heart to understand the mind of God in a difficult situation. Ultimately Malachi hit the nail on the head when he said "God hates divorce".

Last Supper a Passover Meal?

The new Taftee term has begun and we have begun the study of the Synoptic gospels. We are looking at some of the controversies from the gospels which really have no answer. One such we look at this week is why do Mathew, Mark and Luke make the Last Supper the Passover meal when John does not. In fact John 19:14 says that the Passover meal was being readied at the time of the trial. Is it possible to reconcile this difference?

I prefer to go with Mathew, Mark and Luke as a crucifixion on the Passover day is unlikely. The crowds would be difficult to handle without the anger at a crucifixion adding to the turmoil.

In which case is John mistaken or symbolic – Jesus is our Passover and so was sacrificed on the Passover day? Can John be mistaken on so important an event and time? If not, then a symbolic meaning is more likely.

If it is symbolic, how accurate is the dating and the events in the rest of John?

Where did Mark get his materials

It is usually said that Mark obtained his materials from being Peter's interpreter. This comes from a statement made by Bishop Papias. We know from Peter's epistle that Mark was close to him as he refers to him as his son I Peter 5:13.

My struggle with this perspective is that key events in the life of Peter is not mentioned by Mark. The first meeting with Jesus mentioned by John. The first recognition that Jesus was somebody special in Luke 5. The call by Jesus to him to feed the sheep in John 22.

So to me it would appear that Mark got his materials either by having been a witness of a part of Jesus' ministry and by ministering along with Paul and Peter. The content is chosen by him to convey his understanding of the gospel and not Peter's.

Mark wrote his gospel for a Roman audience and he may have written it first as the need for a gospel may have been more urgent in Rome than in Palestine.

Matthew 21:43 - 'bringing forth fruits thereof'

Matthew 21:43 “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

What are the fruits here referring to? If we read the full passage beginning in Matthew 21:33 and compare verse 33 with Isaiah 5:2 we find that Jesus has drawn this parable from Isaiah 5. In Isaiah 5:7 it says that the vineyard is the nation of Israel. The vine dressers in Jesus parable is then the Israelite leaders responsible for developing the thinking in the nation.

They will be judged, according to Jesus and the kingdom of Israel given to the people who bring forth fruits. This fruits is referred to in Isaiah 5:7 as justice and righteousness. Hence the fruits here refers to the life of the leaders and not ‘the fruits of evangelism’ per se. This brings us back to what Jesus says “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”. Following Jesus brings about the nature of Christ and the fruits of the Spirit as given in Galatians 5:22. Then Jesus gives us the vineyard of ministry and we become fishers of men.

The parable in Matthew is essentially against the Jewish leadership, but is also a prophecy o the destruction of the Jewish nation and its leadership and the establishing of the church. But only those who bear the fruits of the Spirit are members of this church, the rest being tares.

Priorities in ministry

Last week I took the Unit A class Book IV of the Certificate Level Course for the group in S.R. Nagar. Book IV deals with the first half of the Year of Passion and is characterised by three journeys of Jesus from Capernaum. Each of these journeys occurs because of opposition to Jesus – first the execution of John the Baptist Matt 14:1ff and the next two due to questioning by the Pharisees Matt 15:1ff and Matt 16:1ff. The period is marked by growing opposition.

During these periods of withdrawal from Galilee to Iturea, Phoenicea and again Iturea Jesus led his small band of close disciples and spent time teaching by words and example leading to the Confession of Peter. After the Confession of Peter, Jesus focuses on preparing them for the crucifixion.

Jesus knew his departure was near and was preparing the apostles for the work they had been called for. But this preparation of the apostles involved Him leaving His ministry in Galilee and focusing on developing the next line of leadership. That is a very hard decision to take. There would have been many in Galilee looking for healing. There would be many looking for a word of comfort. But Jesus felt that the opposition was distracting Him from His important ministry of preparing the apostles.

When I retired from Haggai Institute I felt God telling me not to take on an executive role with anyone, but to spend my time mentoring people through teaching the word. There were a few calls to take on an executive role, especially from ministries I am close to. But I have said no. I did feel guilty no and so this lesson was a great comfort to me.

Is faith AC or DC?

One of the tutors in Bangalore asked me a question raised by her group. Abraham in his life very often exhibited lack of faith – in hiding the fact that Sarah was his wife (Gen Ch 20); in asking for Ishmael to be taken as the chosen one rather than the yet unborn Isaac (Gen Ch 17). Why did not these evidences of lack of faith affect his relationship with God?

We would like to see faith as a steady line, like a DC current. But it is never like that. Faith is a wavy line, a sinusoidal curve that keeps going up and down like an AC current. God knows that and accepts it. It is only when the line is broken and the current stops flowing that our relationship with God is affected. Hence Jesus said that small faith is adequate to move mountains.