Was Jesus a liar?

I know, that title almost sounds blasphemous, but that is how the question was posed on a recent radio talk show. It is in reference to Matthew 16:28, I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (NET) The idea is pretty clear, Jesus hasn't come yet and those standing there that day has since died and did not see it. You could soften it a little and say Jesus didn't lie, he was just mistaken, but that still leaves us with a serious problem.

To escalate the issue, the preceding verse seems to demand that interpretation. The verse states, 27, For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. The narrative that was put forth on the radio show goes something like this: Jesus said he was coming back with his angels, and there were some standing there that day that would see that happen before they died. If that is the way you want to read those verses and demand it to be the only meaning, then you only have two options, he lied, or he was just simply wrong.

The first thing I notice about the text is it speaks of the effort the scribes put into copying the text accurately.  Obviously, if they were going to change it along the way, you would think they would just leave this verse out after the fact. So we must conclude that is what the text said, and they were determined to copy it accurately. 

But are there any other possible interpretations? Often our first conclusions are base on quick references, but a further study reveals other possibilities. One way to understand this passage is simply as two statements related and connected to the subject, but speaking broadly concerning the events. Verse 27 speaking concerning the end results, and verse 28 speaking of the beginning results. In other words, verse 27 was speaking of the end and the judgment, verse 28 speaking of the beginning of the kingdom, which they themselves would see. We know Jesus spoke using such language from his conversation with Nicodemus in John 3:1, Now a certain man, a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish ruling council, came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3, Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (NET) Clearly, it was understood that the Kingdom was visible in the spiritual sense, which the disciples that were then present in verse 28 of Matthew would see when they were born again. 

Another possibility would be the transfiguration which would occur 6 days later, which is recorded in the succeeding chapter of Matthew. It's even more suggestive in the account recorded in the Gospel of Mark, who records many of the same events but at a much faster pace.  Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.” 2, Six days later Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John and led them alone up a high mountain privately. And he was transfigured before them, 3, and his clothes became radiantly white, more so than any launderer in the world could bleach them. 4, Then Elijah appeared before them along with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. (NET) The Greek word translated “in his Kingdom” in Matthew 16:28 is βασιλεία which carries the meaning of royalty, i.e., (abstractly) rule, or (concretely) a realm (literally or figuratively) That certainly would fit the description of the event that would occur 6 days later.

There are other possible ways to understand what those with him that day would actually see. Those who want to find fault with the Bible will obviously demand the first interpretation and thereby render the Bible false and Jesus a liar. Christians will obviously look to one of the other ways to understand it. 

Critics will use such difficult texts to further criticize the Bible, using them as examples to prove we can't really know what it says. That is true in certain cases, there are passages in scripture that are obscure and because of the passage of time we may never know the exact meaning that was intended. It doesn't mean the text is incorrect or corrupted, it is simply difficult for us to know exactly how the first readers would have understood it because of the passage of time. 

This is one of those passages, however, by applying other text such John 3:1 or Mark 9:2 we gain much greater insight. The problem the radio host had, was limiting his insight to those two verses alone and linking them together in such a strict manner, he was not allowing for any other understanding. When reading the Bible, we are not able to ask the author what he may have meant about a particular phase. So it becomes necessary in cases like this to look to other passages that may explain the phase in more detail. How does the Bible understand the term “Kingdom”? We can see from Eph. 5:5, that Jesus has a Kingdom right now, verse 5 For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Also, Col. 1:13, He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, and 1st Thess 2:12, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you live in a way worthy of God who calls you to his own kingdom and his glory. 

Acts 1: 3, To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God. 

Acts 8:12, But when they believed Philip as he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they began to be baptized, both men and women.  

Romans 14: 17, For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. 

1 Cor. 4:20, For the kingdom of God is demonstrated not in idle talk but with power. 

We could go on and on, speaking of the Kingdom. It seems to me this would most likely be the Kingdom that Jesus was referring to when he told them there would be some standing there that would see him coming in his Kingdom. I would even include the transfiguration in the next chapter as a part of that. I can understand how an atheist could see that as a false statement or contradiction, but it is because he has no desire to discover any other possibilities, what he thinks he sees achieves what he's trying to prove. Furthermore, I don't know if he would even accept the other interpretations as viable, probably not, but it is certainly not a text that Christians have any difficulty with. 

Hope this was helpful,

David  

"The unjust Judge of the Universe"

I have another atheist podcast that needs reviewing. It's not my favorite thing to write, however, this one has a serious charge, it brings into question the justice of God. I will post the link at the bottom should you want to see the full video. 

It seems the bottom line of his argument is that God is unjust in His judgment of the human race. We don't know the name of the host, he seems to want to go by DZ. The first thing you notice about DZ is his arrogance. He lets the caller open with a question, which was about creation. DZ responds with, “I don't think anything caused the existence. I think it's an endless chain of narration all the way back. There's never been nothing. . . . Hurtles all the way down, buddy.” He constantly berates his guess for having no proof for what he says, yet makes his own assertion offering no proof other than stating, “you can't get anything from nothing, so it must have always existed.” That was supposed to be enough explanation, nothing more was needed except he said so.  

Actually what he was expressing was an ancient view put forward according to Wikipedia by Aristotle who stated “that everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. Therefore, if the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into existence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. As this assumption is self-contradictory, Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.” I'm sure we all understand now!

To the question at hand, is God unjust? Most of the misunderstanding relating to God's justice comes from not knowing who God is. There is so much emphasis in the Christian community about the love of God, very little thought is put into all the other attributes of God's being. They are sometimes referred to as God's perfections. DZ ends up in the wrong place because his compass is skewed. He develops his own narrative of what justice looks like and works his way from there. He places judgment against a god created from his own mind. I know he would argue otherwise, but I think as we continue we will see clearly he is not talking about the God of the Bible. 

To examine the God of the Bible, we must go to scripture, for that is the only special revelation we have of Him outside the general revelation of creation. He is of such being, had He not chosen to reveal Himself we could never have conceived of Him in our mind. 

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;
His understanding is infinite. 

Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were born, or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. 

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.

To understand the concept of an infinite God, let's get some help from Webster's 1828 dictionary. 

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1828 - Infinite

IN'FINITE, a. [L. infinitus; in and finitus, terminated.]
1. Without limits; unbounded; boundless; not circumscribed; applied to time, space, and qualities. God is infinite in duration, having neither beginning nor end of existence. He is also infinite in presence, or omnipresent, and his perfections are infinite. We also speak of infinite space.

When applying this concept to God's justice, it must be a boundless justice embodied by absolute perfection. Here we need a little more help from Mr. Webster as we consider the two concepts of justice and perfection together. 

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 1828 - Perfection

PERFEC'TION, n. [L. perfectio.] The state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting; as perfection in an art or science; perfection in a system of morals. 

5. An inherent or essential attribute of supreme or infinite excellence; or one perfect in its kind; as the perfections of God. The infinite power, holiness, justice, benevolence, and wisdom of God are denominated his perfections. 

Now that we have a slight grasp of what we are looking for, let's look at an analogy to help step us in comprehension. 

1st level, imagine if I went across the road to my neighbor's house and found a stray dog lying in his yard. For no apparent reason, I went over and kicked it. I have committed an offense to a lower creature, but very little punishment is due from that offense, the neighbor may even thank me. 

Now let's move up a notch, say I went across the road to my neighbor's house and kicked his dog for no apparent reason. It's different now, I have not only committed an offense to a lower creature, but I have also offended my neighbor, a human being, a much higher creature. My offense has now been elevated to another level, I may now face somewhat unpleasant consequences. The act is the same, but the level of offense and punishment has increased.

Once again let's move up another notch, say I went across the road to my neighbor's house and his child was playing in the yard, I walked over and for no reason kicked his child. I most certainly will now face server punishment because my offense is directly against a human being. The first level might be overlooked without damaging the demands of justice too severely. In the second level, the demands of justice, might be mitigated somewhat. But at the human level, justice cannot be overlooked nor mitigated and still remain justice. As DZ tried to allude to in the video, the punishment must match the offense. Perfect justice must match the offense perfectly. This perfect justice brings us to the last level.

Even in our society, a crime against a higher authority figure demands a greater punishment. Imagine the consequences of “you” punching a man on the street. You would be arrested for assault and go to a county jail. However, if you punch a police officer, you would be arrested for obstruction and go to jail for much longer. If you punch the President of the United States, you're going to Federal prison. In each case, the punishment escalates based no on the act but on the one the crime was committed against. If we punch (sin against) God, logically, we understand that crimes against an infinite Being necessarily escalates to an infinite level. 

Even under our human laws, the severity of a crime depends, in part, on the value of the target of the offense. If a man enters a junkyard at night and smashes the headlights of a junked car, he will probably pay a small fine. But if that same man enters the showroom of a Porsche dealer and starts busting up a new 911S, he will pay a much larger fine and probably serve some jail time. The difference is the value of the crime’s target. Punishment is proportionate to the worth of the thing damaged. Though God cannot be damaged, His glory can be offended, which is the most valuable thing in existence, it is of infinite worth. If punishment is proportional, then crimes committed against God deserve an infinite penalty. DZ's imaginary god is of little value to him, therefore, the thought of an eternal punishment for any kind of offense naturally appears to him as unjust. 

DZ wants to use the biblical concept of punishment, yet he does not want to use the biblical concept of God. Instead, he creates a straw god of his own imagination and pawns that off as the God of the Bible. DZ puts forth a scenario contrasting a 13-year-old girl stealing a candy bar and a war criminal committing genocide. He then wants to know if they both are going to burn in hell forever, demanding a yes or no question! I'm not sure the caller could have answered his question, but every time he tried, DZ would stop him and demand a yes a no answer. DZ has been here before and knows how to play to his audience. 

DZ's 13-year-old girl candy bar scenario is designed to tug at your heart and create an image of injustice in your mind. It is another straw man argument to enable him to stand on the moral high ground. First, there are no 13-year-old girls who only stole a candy bar in hell, the only people who will be in hell will be wicked depraved sinners and devils. The only way a 13-year-old girl can find her way to hell is to be one of those wicked, depraved sinners.  DZ would have you think there will be people in hell who do not deserve to be there. The God presented in the Bible is an infinite God, infinite in wisdom and knowledge. He knows all there is to know about any 13-year-old anybody and knows them with perfect justice. 1 John 3:20 ESV for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. 

Matthew 10: 29, Aren’t two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.30, Even all the hairs on your head are numbered. 31, So do not be afraid; you are more valuable than many sparrows.

Psa 139:4, Certainly my tongue does not frame a word without you, O Lord, being thoroughly aware of it 13, Certainly you made my mind and heart; you wove me together in my mother’s womb. 
    14, I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing. You knew me thoroughly; 
    15, my bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret and sewed together in the depths of the earth. 
    16, Your eyes saw me when I was inside the womb. All the days ordained for me were recorded in your scroll before one of them came into existence.

What DZ's candy scenario does reveal is the root of the issue. Why would a 13-year-old want to steal? It demonstrates we know what is right, we by nature just don't want to do it. We all want to rebel, it's our nature, what we are, and that's the problem. There have to be restraints placed upon us for it to even be possible for a society to exist. Without the institution of laws and punishments and some means of legal justice, our existence would be a hell on earth. This is necessary because of what we are. Raise a child to adulthood without any restraints, and they will destroy themselves and everyone around them. Remember, the restraints don't change what we are, they just restrain it. Training and education helps them by their own conscience to discipline themselves and restrain their own passions, but it does not change their nature. They may not steal the candy bar at 13, but there will be a passion within them that they must restrain, or they will.

Hell is not just a place of punishment, it is a place of unrestrained passions, we are eternal beings and without the Gospel we are eternal sinners. Hell will not stop us from sinning, it will only release us to our unrestrained passions against God and against each other. Luke 13: 28, There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without.

Weeping and gnashing of teeth typifies unrestrained passions of anger and hatred amid misery and suffering. DZ's own sense of justice is subjective, he places God on trial, yet he himself would be judged unjust by another's subjective sense of justice and culture. It is DZ's own atheism that embodies injustice, from his subjective sense of reality, every murderer, molester, and thief that lives their life without getting caught will go unpunished. The reward of their depravity will be their peace, and that is supposed to be his justice? 

DZ judges unjust a God who provides a way for a people who simply cannot stop sinning to restrain their passions, love righteousness and pass into a state of sinless existence and peace with Him upon death. The great exchange of the Gospel, where Christ took upon himself our punishment, and gave to us His righteousness, meets the demands of justice demonstrated by His resurrection, and sets the sinner free. 
 

In concluding, we can only say, DZ has no reasonable argument to bring against scripture. His argument only appears to have substance because he creates his own narrative, uses make believe stories, and straw man arguments to prove his case. He reads the scripture not to understand the text, but to substantiate his own reason. He does not understand the theology of God, but one of his own creation. Furthermore, he does not understand the hyperstatic union of Christ and how it was possible for him to provide eternal redemption for His people. 

Atheist want to argue against God based upon their sense of morality, yet we all know how flawed we are. We know something is amiss, we are contstantly trying to overcome it, always to fail. This very knowledge of ourselves unleases our hatred toward God, and feeds our passion to do away with Him that we might free ourselves from our own guild.  The atheist must reject the concept of God, for if there is one and He is just, we are in trouble.

Thanks for reading,

David

(Your God is Imaginary)