#### Matthew 3.7-8, Luke 3.7-8A. In _Mark_ we only see John the baptist’s appearance, plus the obligatory reference to that _Isaiah_ passage about preparing the Lord’s way and making his paths straight. Is 40.3 In the other synoptic gospels we see the same thing… _plus_ a bit where John rebukes some of the people who aren’t all that repentant; who’ve come to the desert to gawk at him. Because of the time _Matthew_ and _Luke_ spend on this bit, you might get the wrong idea—that this was _all_ John taught. That his only purpose was to denounce popular Jewish culture for being hypocritical and only worthy of God’s wrath. You’d especially get this wrong idea if your favorite preachers _taught_ this was John’s main purpose—and likewise teach it’s _their_ main purpose. This is how dark Christianity perpetuates itself. But this is _not_ John’s main purpose, nor his main message. Preparing the Lord’s way does _not_ consist of raging against all the evil and corruption in the world. It’s doing as John _usually_ did: Telling people their sins are forgiven, and baptizing them so they can follow the LORD anew. We Christians are supposed to do this too. _And_ when the religious snobs come to visit our churches and meetings, and complain we’re not doing it in a manner which pleases them, _then_ we can respond to ’em like John did. _Matthew_ 3.7-8 KWL 7Seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, _John_ told them, “Spawn of vipers! Who whispered to you² to flee the coming wrath? 8So produce the worthy fruit of repentance!” _Luke_ 3.7-8 KWL 7So _John_ said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “Spawn of vipers! Who whispered to you² to flee the coming wrath? 8ASo produce the worthy fruit of repentance!” Christianity is meant to be a _lifestyle_ of repentance. And by “repentance” I don’t mean feeling remorseful and guilty all the time, constantly apologizing for all our past misdeeds, constantly apologizing for _others’_ many and egregious misdeeds. (I mean, there’s obviously a time to tell American Indians you’re dreadfully sorry for your white ancestors murdering their ancestors, or looking the other way as your ancestors moved onto their stolen land… and a time _not_ to. True of other such atrocities.) Christianity isn’t supposed to be about continuously beating ourselves up for being dirty sinners. Some churches do that, and they’re absolutely wrong to. Properly, repentance is about _going the other way_. You _used_ to run towards sin; now go the other way. You _used_ to rush towards evildoing and revenge and trolling; now go the other way. You _used_ to embrace insults and trash talk and sarcasm; now go the other way. _Used_ to, right? If not, maybe you’d better start producing the worthy fruit of repentance. #### The religious snobs. We tend to bash these groups for being religious snobs, while ignoring much of our own condescending attitudes towards other religions, and towards fellow Christians who don’t worship like we do. They’re in the gospels to warn us away from adopting their behavior. _Not_ to simply say, “Thank you Lord that I am not a Pharisee nor Sadducee nor secular pagan who only pays you lip-service; I fast twice a week and tithe whatever I get.” Lk 18.11-12 Never presume just because we don’t share their labels that we don’t share their trespasses. Oh, and _don’t_ share their trespasses. In John’s crowd, we have: * **PHARISEES.** These are the _religious_ Jews—as opposed to irreligious, secular Jews. Most were actually trying to follow God as best they could; it’s why they went to synagogue so they could learn the Law of Moses in excruciating detail, and never violate it—or at least learn all the useful loopholes. Yeah—same as Christians—many were hypocrites, faking it for social and political acceptance. But don’t get the wrong idea _all_ Pharisees were that way. * **SADDUCEES.** These are the Reform Jews of the day: They believed in God and upheld the Law, but didn’t believe in angels, miracles, present-day prophets, afterlife, resurrection, or End Times; and only had five books in their bible. When they weren’t working in temple they lived much like their Greco-Roman patrons. Freakishly, these are the folks who ran Judea: The head priest, his family, and the leading families of Jerusalem, were Sadducee. * **LEVITES.** Israel consisted of 13 tribes—12 with land, and Levites were the 13th, a tribe of priests who lived in cities and took turns serving in temple. John was a Levite himself. Some were Pharisee, some Sadducee, some in other Jewish sects. But all were involved in temple. * **THE ROMANS.** _Luke_ 3.14 says there were soldiers in John’s crowd, and the only soldiers were Roman—occupying troops originally sent to help Herod 1 suppress his own people, but after Herod died, Cæsar Augustus turned Judea from a client state to a Roman province, and the troops were there to support the Roman procurators and the taxmen. Understandably, Judeans didn’t care for them—and some would object to John even teaching them to be saved. But salvation is for everyone; even gentiles. * **“THE CROWDS.”** In _Luke_ , John appears hostile to everybody, not just the religious folks. _Everybody_ gets slammed in his preaching. No exceptions. But it’s fair to say most of them were Pharisees—because in their End Times timeline, Elijah comes before Messiah, and they wondered whether John was this Elijah. (Spoiler: He is.) #### Prophetic disdain for religious snobs. Elsewhere I pointed out some preachers and commentators claim John was Essene. There are some _really_ shaky grounds for this idea, but they ignore all the shaking and insist on it. I say ignore them. After the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1940s, people presumed the separatist Jewish sect which collected them—the Qumranis; the zealots who occupied Masada when the Romans invaded in the year 70—were actually the Essenes, and John came from _this_ sect. Again, no he wasn’t. But I will point out one of the popular Qumrani beliefs was that heretics—meaning the Sadducees—had taken over the temple, and needed to be overthrown. In the Qumrani version of the End Times, Sadducee priests and Pharisee rabbis were some of the “sons of darkness,” whereas _they_ were the sons of light. At some point, the sons of light would fight the sons of darkness, win, and the two messiahs (yep, they believed in two messiahs) would rule Israel: The Messiah of Israel would rule the nation, and the Messiah of Aaron would run the temple. When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in the great tribulation, the Qumranis believed it to be the End, and fought these “sons of darkness” to the death. _Their_ death; none survived. Which just goes to show how getting the End Times wrong can become a really big deal. Anyway, Qumranis weren’t alone in thinking Sadducees and Pharisees were heretic, or at least profoundly wrong and corrupt. I don’t know whether John shared the Qumranis’ sentiment, but he _did_ call these people γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν/_yennímata ehidnón_ , “spawn of vipers” (KJV “generation of vipers,” NIV “brood of vipers”). Yes, the vipers were intentionally meant to remind people of the serpent of Eden, i.e. Satan. “Spawn of vipers” would’ve been immediately recognized as an offensive term; exactly like “sons of bitches” in ours. (Whoops, should’ve warned you that profanity was coming. I’ll wait while you go get your fainting salts and fan yourself.) Why was John trying to offend them? We can tell from what he said next: “Produce the worthy fruit of repentance.” Which they weren’t doing. They were producing the fake stuff. Stuff which made ’em look good in public, but didn’t impress God any. John nailed down the sort of fruit he meant: Stuff which demonstrates to _God_ , not others, they’re serious about following him.

Whenever we fast, prayer needs to be a part of it. Yes, fasting helps us develop spiritual maturity; yes, fasting increases our self-discipline and self-control; yes, fasting shows our commitment to God (assuming we _are_ doing it for God, and not because we have an ulterior motive to lose a pound or two). Yes, it has its spiritual benefits. But its _point_ is the hardcore pursuit of God, whom we love more than calories. So we _should_ be talking with him throughout. And in the scriptures, when we see people fast, that’s what they’re doing: Talking with God. Usually because they have a dire need or have a serious question, and want God to help or answer ’em. And that’s fine; God _wants_ us to bring our questions and needs to him. First thing is to _not_ bring public attention to your fasting, lest you want God to ignore your requests because you’re _really_ just fasting for the attention. _Matthew_ 6.16-18 NLT 16 _“And when you fast, don’t make it obvious, as the hypocrites do, for they try to look miserable and disheveled so people will admire them for their fasting. I tell you the truth, that is the only reward they will ever get. 17But when you fast, comb your hair and wash your face. 18Then no one will notice that you are fasting, except your Father, who knows what you do in private. And your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.”_ Forget the burlap and ashes; yes I _know_ people in the Old Testament did it, but they didn’t know any better. Cancel any lunch or dinner dates—don’t do that thing where you go to them anyway, but conspicuously don’t eat; that’s hypocrisy too. Go through your day as usual, but instead of eating, pray. Seek God’s aid and answers. #### Old Testament examples. The New Testament has a few examples of fasting and prayer as well, but today I’m gonna focus on the Old Testament examples. When they were petitioning God and included fasting, things tended to be a lot more dire. **JONAH BEN AMITTAI.** Jonah’s story is fairly well-known by most Christians, ’cause we’ve largely made it a Sunday-school story. He was sent to Assyria to tell them their capital city Nineveh would be destroyed. He didn’t want to; he tried to flee to Spain—as if the LORD’s not _everywhere_ —so God had a storm smack their boat around until Jonah offered to be thrown overboard to save them. God then had a big fish (which Jesus identified as a whale, Mt 12.40 KJV because the ancients classified whales as fish) swallow Jonah and spit him up on a beach, so Jonah grudgingly proclaimed Nineveh’s destruction. And the Assyrians _repented_. _Jonah_ 3.5-10 NLT 5The people of Nineveh believed God’s message, and from the greatest to the least, they declared a fast and put on burlap to show their sorrow. 6When the king of Nineveh heard what Jonah was saying, he stepped down from his throne and took off his royal robes. He dressed himself in burlap and sat on a heap of ashes. 7Then the king and his nobles sent this decree throughout the city: > “No one, not even the animals from your herds and flocks, may eat or drink anything at all. 8People and animals alike must wear garments of mourning, and everyone must pray earnestly to God. They must turn from their evil ways and stop all their violence. 9Who can tell? Perhaps even yet God will change his mind and hold back his fierce anger from destroying us.” 10When God saw what they had done and how they had put a stop to their evil ways, he changed his mind and did not carry out the destruction he had threatened. Thus turning Jonah into a false prophet. Which enraged Jonah, who just _knew_ the LORD was gonna be a big softy towards his beloved Assyrians, and Jonah wished God would just kill him now. Jh 4.1-3 But tantrum-throwing prophets aside, my obvious point is the fasting meant the Assyrians were serious and earnest, and God heard ’em. **JOEL BEN PETHUEL.** The prophet Joel declared “the LORD’s Day” was coming to Jerusalem. Plenty of Christians claim this term means Jesus’s second coming, when he returns to smite the wicked and gather the faithful. And no, in the book of _Joel_ , it doesn’t. “The LORD’s Day” refers to any day in human history when God decides enough is enough, and disaster is going to befall a sinful people-group, exactly like he was planning to do with Nineveh. Even though you might be a devout believer, _you’re still part of that sinful people-group._ Daniel and Ezekiel got deported to Babylon same as the sinners. There were many Christians in Germany who had _not_ capitulated to the Nazis when the Allies defeated them in 1945, and they were bombed and shot just the same. For that righteous segment of the population, Joel had a message from God for them: _Joel_ 2.12-18 NLT 12That is why the LORD says, _“Turn to me now, while there is time._ _Give me your hearts._ _Come with fasting, weeping, and mourning._ 13 _Don’t tear your clothing in your grief,_ _but tear your hearts instead.”_ Return to the LORD your God, for he is merciful and compassionate, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love. He is eager to relent and not punish. 14Who knows? Perhaps he will give you a reprieve, sending you a blessing instead of this curse. Perhaps you will be able to offer grain and wine to the LORD your God as before. 15Blow the ram’s horn in Jerusalem! Announce a time of fasting; call the people together for a solemn meeting. 16Gather all the people— the elders, the children, and even the babies. Call the bridegroom from his quarters and the bride from her private room. 17Let the priests, who minister in the LORD’s presence, stand and weep between the entry room to the Temple and the altar. Let them pray, “Spare your people, LORD! Don’t let your special possession become an object of mockery. Don’t let them become a joke for unbelieving foreigners who say, ‘Has the God of Israel left them?’ ” 18Then the LORD will pity his people and jealously guard the honor of his land. Call others to fast along with you; get ’em to drop what they’re doing (or in the case of the newlyweds in verse 16, _whom_ they’re doing) and repent as a nation. If they do that, God’ll save them. Spoiler: They didn’t do that. The few who _did_ listen to Joel and fasted, weren’t enough to stop Jerusalem’s destruction. **DANIEL.** Daniel was one of the Judean nobles who lived through that destruction, got deported to Babylon, and even though _he_ did relatively well in that culture—maintaining his government position even after Kūruš of Persia conquered the neo-Babylonian Empire, and Darayava’uš (KJV “Darius”) succeeded him—he still mourned for his homeland. _Daniel_ 9.1-3 NLT 1It was the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who became king of the Babylonians. 2During the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, learned from reading the word of the LORD, as revealed to Jeremiah the prophet, that Jerusalem must lie desolate for seventy years. 3So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and fasting. I also wore rough burlap and sprinkled myself with ashes. He gave a big ol’ repentant prayer, Da 9.4-20 and in response God sent him Gabriel to tell him the future. Da 9.21-27 Daniel wanted answers and hope; the LORD sent Gabriel with answers and hope. **ESTHER BAT ABIHAIL.** Esther was the queen consort of Darayava’uš’s son Xšayārša (KJV “Ahasuerus,” NIV “Xerxes”), and Xšayārša’s vizier Haman bar Hammedatha had convinced the king to make it legal for Persians to kill any Jews they found among them, all on one day—13 Adar 473BC. Es 3.8-14 _Esther_ 4.1-15 NLT 1When Mordecai learned about all that had been done, he tore his clothes, put on burlap and ashes, and went out into the city, crying with a loud and bitter wail. 2He went as far as the gate of the palace, for no one was allowed to enter the palace gate while wearing clothes of mourning. 3And as news of the king’s decree reached all the provinces, there was great mourning among the Jews. They fasted, wept, and wailed, and many people lay in burlap and ashes. 4When Queen Esther’s maids and eunuchs came and told her about Mordecai, she was deeply distressed. She sent clothing to him to replace the burlap, but he refused it. 5Then Esther sent for Hathach, one of the king’s eunuchs who had been appointed as her attendant. She ordered him to go to Mordecai and find out what was troubling him and why he was in mourning. 6So Hathach went out to Mordecai in the square in front of the palace gate. 7Mordecai told him the whole story, including the exact amount of money Haman had promised to pay into the royal treasury for the destruction of the Jews. 8Mordecai gave Hathach a copy of the decree issued in Susa that called for the death of all Jews. He asked Hathach to show it to Esther and explain the situation to her. He also asked Hathach to direct her to go to the king to beg for mercy and plead for her people. 9So Hathach returned to Esther with Mordecai’s message. 10Then Esther told Hathach to go back and relay this message to Mordecai: 11“All the king’s officials and even the people in the provinces know that anyone who appears before the king in his inner court without being invited is doomed to die unless the king holds out his gold scepter. And the king has not called for me to come to him for thirty days.” 12So Hathach gave Esther’s message to Mordecai. 13Mordecai sent this reply to Esther: “Don’t think for a moment that because you’re in the palace you will escape when all other Jews are killed. 14If you keep quiet at a time like this, deliverance and relief for the Jews will arise from some other place, but you and your relatives will die. Who knows if perhaps you were made queen for just such a time as this?” 15Then Esther sent this reply to Mordecai: 16“Go and gather together all the Jews of Susa and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will do the same. And then, though it is against the law, I will go in to see the king. If I must die, I must die.” 17So Mordecai went away and did everything as Esther had ordered him. You’ll notice the fasting, but no reference made to prayer. That’s because the Hebrew text of the book of _Esther_ deliberately left God and religion out of the story. But it’s awfully hard to hide the fact you don’t just fast for no reason. Nor Mordecai’s comment about just _who_ made his cousin the queen. In any event, Xšayārša didn’t kill Esther when she showed up uninvited, and she had to throw him two banquets before she got up enough nerve to tell him _she_ was one of the people who’d be slaughtered on 13 Adar. In his wrath, Xšayārša had Haman crucified, then passed a law permitting the Jews to defend themselves and spoil their enemies, and that pretty much undid Haman’s edict. And now Jews celebrate 13 Adar every year as Purim. **EZRA BAR SERAIAH.** Ezra the scribe was a Levite who led a group of settlers from Babylon to reestablish Jerusalem during the reign of Xšayārša’s son Artaxšaçā (KJV “Artaxerxes”). Because Ezra wanted to show off to Artaxšaçā how they had God’s favor, he didn’t accept any royal escort—so now they really _had_ to pray for God’s favor. _Ezra_ 8.21-23 NLT 21And there by the Ahava Canal, I gave orders for all of us to fast and humble ourselves before our God. We prayed that he would give us a safe journey and protect us, our children, and our goods as we traveled. 22For I was ashamed to ask the king for soldiers and horsemen to accompany us and protect us from enemies along the way. After all, we had told the king, “Our God’s hand of protection is on all who worship him, but his fierce anger rages against those who abandon him.” 23So we fasted and earnestly prayed that our God would take care of us, and he heard our prayer. Our culture has been _so_ spoiled by our highway patrols and state troopers; raiders and “highwaymen” were a _constant_ problem in the past. But God kept Ezra and his party safe. **NEHEMIAH BAR HACALIAH.** Decades later, Artaxšaçā’s cupbearer Nehemiah heard things weren’t going well in Jerusalem; they still hadn’t built the city wall. So Nehemiah turned to God. _Nehemiah_ 1.4 NLT When I heard this, I sat down and wept. In fact, for days I mourned, fasted, and prayed to the God of heaven. He recorded just what he prayed to God, and months later brought it up to Artaxšaçā, who quickly sent him to Jerusalem to fix the problem, and granted all his other requests “because the gracious hand of God was on me.” Ne 2.8 NLT #### Takeaways. Notice in all these stories, how it isn’t just the fasting—or the burlap—which moves God to act. It’s the fact these folks were sincere and earnest about what they requested. They didn’t take for granted the fact they were God’s chosen people. (And yes, that includes the Assyrians; _every_ culture thinks they’re God’s chosen people, even if they’re not.) They didn’t presume anything except that God was more apt to hear them when they actively demonstrated they prioritized him over food. These stories don’t prove God _will_ or _must_ say yes to our requests when we fast and pray. Sometimes we ask for the wrong things. Sometimes we’re _fasting_ when we ask for the wrong things. God’s never under any obligation to grant us absolutely anything we request. He’ll answer; he’ll tell us no. Even when we earnestly, sincerely want it, he knows what’s best; he’ll tell us no. We have to trust him, accept that, and move on. I have blind friends God’s not cured, deaf friends he’s not cured; they _still_ get hassled by well-meaning Christians who insist they’ve just gotta pray harder and maybe try fasting. No; those well-meaning Christians need to read their bibles instead of cherry-picking verses which suggest God always answers yes. He does not. But he _does_ answer, and it’s the _right_ answer. And isn’t that what we want after a good fast?—a good answer from God. Always pray for that.

#### John 1.15, 19-28. The _Gospel of John_ doesn’t describe John the baptist’s appearance like _Mark_ and the other synoptics; John’s just _there_ , doing his ministry. The author assumed his readers would already know who John the baptist was—and already know a _lot_ of the Jesus stories, which is why the gospel was largely written to fill in the blanks in those stories. _John_ skips John’s birth story ’cause _Luke_ already told it; skips what John looked like and preached ’cause the synoptics already told it; he just goes straight to what John taught about Jesus. _John_ 1.15 KWL John witnesses about _Jesus_ ᴾ and _when he_ cried out, _he’s_ saying, “This is of whom I say, ‘The one who comes after me came into being before me.’ Because he’s first _over_ me.” The author only cared about _that_. So the gospel leapfrogged all John’s _other_ teachings, and the first we see of John is verse 15, and his testimony to the Judean leadership who wanted to know who he was. As told in this part here: _John_ 1.19-28 KWL 19And this is John’s testimony, when the Judeans of Jerusalem send priests and Levites out _to him_ so they could ask him, “Who are you¹?” 20 _John_ is in agreement _with them_ , does not resist _them_ , and agrees _with them_ : “I’m not Messiah.” 21They ask _John_ ,ᴾ “So… what, are you¹ Elijah?” He says, “I’m not.” “Are you¹ the Prophet?” He answers, “No.” 22So they say, “Who are you¹?— so we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you¹ say about yourself¹?” 23 _John_ is saying, “I’m ‘a voice crying out in the wilderness: Straighten the Lord’s path!’ Is 40.3 like the prophet Isaiah said.” 24Those who were sent are from the Pharisees, 25and are questioning _John_ ,ᴾ and are telling him, “So why do you¹ baptize, if you’re¹ not Messiah nor Elijah nor the Prophet?” 26John answers them, saying, “I baptize in water. In your² midst, one has stood among you.² You’ve² not known him. 27{He’s} the one coming after me, {who has got in front of me}. I’m not worthy to loose his sandal strap.” 28These _events_ happen in Bethany-beyond-the-Jordan, where John is baptizing. Now y’might notice the three people John said he’s _not_ : * Messiah. * Elijah. * The Prophet. These three are major figures in the Pharisee End Times Timeline. Back then, same as now, people figured the End was coming, and might actually be upon us. And since John was getting a lot of attention, Pharisees wanted to know whether John considered himself any of these End Times guys. They likely had their doubts. But John silenced those doubts by quickly saying nope, he’s none of those guys. He’s just a voice in the wilderness, like Isaiah described, telling people to get ready ’cause the Lord is coming. And no, this “voice in the wilderness” is _not_ a specific prophecy about John the baptist. It’s just a verse John borrowed to describe what he was up to. Because _anybody_ who speaks up for God in a lawless, fruitless, godless culture is a voice in the wilderness. Any Christian can be such a voice. Many Christians have been. Likewise anyone who tells people to get ready for Jesus’s second coming—especially to a culture who’s more interested in _looking_ like they follow God instead of bearing actual good fruit—is a similar voice in a wild, undeveloped, untended land. Wouldn’t hurt to have more of them. #### But _isn’t_ John the baptist the second coming of Elijah? Part of the reason the crowds came to check out John was his lifestyle. His camelhair clothing and leather belt Mk 1.6, Mt 3.4 are deliberately meant to remind people of Elijah from the bible, the prophet of rain and fire who wore… well, the leather belt at least. 2Ki 1.8 John was mimicking Elijah. But of course he’s not _literally_ Elijah; he’s John bar Zechariah. Thing is, the Pharisees had precise End Times beliefs about Elijah. Christians aren’t the only ones with wild and wacky End Times theories. Plenty of religions have ’em. As did the Pharisees! They cherry-picked scriptures from _Daniel, Ezekiel,_ and other prophets, and spliced together their very own End Times timeline. _And_ they added books from the pseudepigrapha—books which _claimed_ to be written by famous Old Testament saints like Enoch, Moses, and Ezra, but weren’t really. Kinda like End Times prognosticators who quote the Left Behind novels and John Hagee’s false ~~prophecies~~ predictions far more often than _Revelation_. The most popular Pharisee theory of John’s day, claimed Israel would undergo 12 tribulations before the End. After the 12th ended, “the Prophet”—the very last prophet in history, a prophet like Moses Dt 18.15 whom Israelis were obligated to heed—would appear. Pharisees didn’t agree whether this Prophet was a whole new prophet, or the second coming of Elijah. (Elijah hadn’t died, remember? Went straight to heaven in a whirlwind. 2Ki 2.11) If you took _Malachi_ literally—and plenty still do—Elijah should be _literally_ coming back. Ml 4.5 Then he and this Prophet would work together. Others insisted nope, Elijah and the Prophet are the same guy. Pharisees expected Elijah to return the fathers’ hearts to their children and vice-versa. Ml 4.6 Once he magically achieved this, _then_ Messiah’d come, defeat Israel’s enemies, and rule the nation for 400 years. (Although some Pharisees believed in _two_ messiahs—one who’d die, Is 53 and one who’d reign.) John’s physical appearance looked mighty Elijah-like, 2Ki 1.8, Mk 1.6 so naturally Pharisees wanted to know what his deal was. John’s reply? _Not Elijah. Not the Prophet._ A lowercase-P prophet; a whole other guy. Nobody special. Thing is, John totally _is_ Elijah. Christ Jesus said so. _Matthew_ 17.10-13 NRSVue 10And the disciples asked him, “Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 11He replied, _“Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things, 12but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands.”_ 13Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist. It looks like John honestly believed he wasn’t Elijah. But Jesus is in a position to know precisely what John is—since he’s the same LORD who spoke to the prophet Malachi, and knew exactly what he meant when he foretold Elijah’s second coming. The angel Gabriel, who foretold John to John’s father, was likewise in a position to know: _Luke_ 1.16-17 NRSVue 16“He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. 17With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” John was divinely granted Elijah’s spirit, power, and commission. Clear-cut enough for you? Remember, John is human, and not infallible. You want infallible, you listen to Jesus. Elijah’s second coming was fulfilled by John. And regardless of the claims of today’s End Times prognosticators, it needn’t be fulfilled again. Any of ’em who puts the second coming of Elijah in their timelines is _ignoring Jesus_. Dangerous behavior for people who claim to follow him, right? So relax; it’s okay to ignore the prognosticators.

#### 1 Kings 18.1-6. The scriptures say this happened in “the third year,” 1Ki 18.1 which could either mean the third year of the reign of Ahab ben Omri, king of Ephraim; or the third year of the water being turned off. The apostle James presumed it was the third year of drought, Jm 5.17 and he’s probably right. Elijah was hiding in Sidon, so the word of the LORD (whom we Christians know as Jesus) told him it was time to return to Ahab and present himself. Rain was coming. _1 Kings_ 18.1-2 KWL 1Many days came, and in the third year the LORD’s word came to Elijah to say, _“Go appear to Ahab._ _I will give rain to the face of the soil.”_ 2Elijah left, to appear to Ahab. The hunger was hard in Samaria. Verse 2 tends to be translated, “The _famine_ was hard,” but a shortage of food is one thing; it’s the fact people have to cut back on eating which causes the greatest amount of distress in a famine. In the United States, if money is tight, you gotta switch to cheaper food, or start visiting the food banks. In wealthy countries you don’t _have_ to suffer during our years of famine. Ancient Ephraim was _not_ a wealthy country; Ahab could ride it out just fine, but his people were definitely feeling it. And unlike the other Israeli country of Judah, the Ephraimites didn’t consider their king divinely appointed by the LORD; they could _totally_ overthrow him, same as Ahab’s last two predecessors had overthrown _their_ predecessors. So in _that_ sense, Ahab was feeing it too. Anyway, while Elijah headed for Samaria, Ahab and his butler Obadiah— _not_ the prophet; different Obadiah—start looking for grass for Ahab’s hungry livestock. _1 Kings_ 18.3-6 KWL 3Ahab summoned Obadiah, who _supervised_ the house. Obadiah greatly respected the LORD. 4Jezebel was cutting off the LORD’s prophets. Obadiah took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave. He provided bread and water for them. 5Ahab told Obadiah, “Go to the land, to all the water springs and all the wadis. Perhaps we _might_ find grass, and keep alive the horse and mule, and not cut off the domestic animals.” 6They divided the land between them, to pass through it: Ahab went one way to his part, and Obadiah went one way to his part. Most bibles translate verse 5, “horses and mules,” but the Hebrew is singular. Ahab _might_ have been down to only one of each by now. I should point out the Israelis were forbidden to breed mules, Lv 19.19 and the king was forbidden to overdo it on owning horses. Dt 17.16 But as an unrepentant pagan, we can’t expect Ahab to care much about God’s commands. #### Obadiah’s deal. It appears while Elijah has been gone, things got rough for the LORD’s prophets and followers. Ahab’s queen Jezebel had been “cutting them off,” which can either mean driving them out of the country, or straight-up murdering them. Most interpreters figure it’s the second thing. In ancient Israeli culture, there was supposed to only be _one_ king. (Properly, the LORD, with the anointed king as his vice-regent; not that most kings remembered how this was meant to work.) The king’s wife—or wives; they did polygamy y’know—was a queen _consort_ , and wasn’t meant to rule anything. Thing is, Jezebel bat Ethbaal wasn’t raised in Israel, but Sidon, and Sidonian queens _did_ rule stuff. They were the high priestesses of Ashtoreth; they had considerable religious power, and this was regularly converted into political power, ’cause you _don’t_ wanna outrage Ashtoreth’s favorite worshiper. Jezebel had brought this worship into Ephraim with her, and obviously flexed that power as much as she could. And used it to get rid of Ashtoreth’s competition—as represented by the LORD’s prophets. Likely Jezebel was taking advantage of the drought to develop an ancient form of McCarthyism: Blame the LORD for the drought, and destroy his followers in revenge. Another strong possibility is Jezebel was twisting the LORD’s existing commands—as she later did in the case of Naboth 1Ki 21 —by ordering the LORD’s prophets to undo what Elijah had done, and when they couldn’t, destroy them as “false prophets.” Which means Obadiah was playing a deadly and expensive game. A hundred prophets were now stashed away in two caves, and he was feeding and watering them despite the famine. He likely used his position to find out which prophets were to be persecuted. His later near-panicked reaction to meeting Elijah suggests he himself was desperately afraid of being found out. Even so, Obadiah is a useful reminder of how God always has a contingent of followers in the worst places, and how they can still continue to do good even in dire circumstances. If you ever despair that God has no one left—no one to stand in the gap between our crumbling civilization and him—you’re usually worrying for nothing. Because if there really _is_ no one left… well, maybe you remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.

#### 1 Kings 17.17-24. There’s some debate about this story: Whether Elijah raises a boy from the dead, or whether Elijah just cures a boy who’s gravely ill. Since the LORD has to put the boy’s soul—his lifeforce—back into his body, 1Ki 17.22 and a body without a soul is dead, I’m gonna say it looks like he died. _1 Kings_ 17.17 KWL After these things happened, the son of the woman fell ill; _she was_ head of the house. The illness became very serious, until there was no breath remaining in him. “The woman” was the Sidonian widow whom the LORD had ordered to provide for Elijah. 1Ki 17.9 Verse 17 points out she’s the head of the house, which either means she’s in charge of the family—there are no adult men to lead it—or simply that she’s a homeowner. ’Cause she _did_ own a house, and verse 19 tells us Elijah was living in its upper room. We knew from verse 12 she had a son. We don’t know how old he was, but she could put him on her lap, 1Ki 17.19 so it looks like he was still little. We also don’t know what illness he had, but it stopped him from breathing. It must’ve come upon him suddenly, because Elijah appears to not have known about it till the woman confronted him in the next verse: _1 Kings_ 17.18 KWL _The woman_ said to Elijah, “What _are_ you¹ to me, man of God? _Did_ you¹ come to me to remind _me of_ my wrongdoing, and to put to death my son?” I don’t think there’s any other way to read this, than to interpret it as a really angry reaction. So… what’s _that_ all about? “What are you to me?” is an ancient middle eastern saying, found in both testaments of the bible. Jesus actually says it to his mom. Jn 2.4 People presume it’s a light rebuke when Jesus says it, because we _can’t_ imagine him yelling at his mom; she’s only trying to help! Jn 2.3 But every time the saying appears otherwise in the bible, it’s _not_ light; it’s an outright rejection. It’s their version of “Get the [EXPLETIVE DELETED] away from me!” But _why_ does the widow want Elijah out of there? Because she thinks God’s at fault for her son dying. And why would she leap to that conclusion? She says it herself: עֲוֹנִ֖י/_aöní_ , “my wrongdoing.” Not her רַע/_ra_ , “evil”; not her חָטָא/_khatá_ , “sin.” She didn’t break a command or anything. But she believed she _did_ go farther in some way than she should have; she trespassed. Something so egregious, Elijah’s god took it out on her kid. Although you notice she never directly rebukes Elijah’s god. The ire is all directed towards the prophet. She probably didn’t wanna risk further smiting. I have no idea what this trespass might be, ’cause the bible doesn’t say. I just know she _really_ didn’t understand what kind of character the LORD has. He’s not a petty, vengeful god like the Baals the Sidonians usually worshiped. He’s not eagerly waiting for us to slip up so he can slap us down and send us to hell. God is love. But if the sort of gods you’re used to, or were raised to believe in, are the angry smitey sort, stands to reason you’d think any of your bad karma would unleash his wrath upon you. Now you’d _think_ because the LORD was miraculously providing them food, she’d have a better idea of what God’s like. But not necessarily. Sometimes it takes an awful lot to get the idea of God’s grace through our thick skulls. Some Christians _never_ really get it, and spend the rest of their lives as legalists because they think God keeps a tally of our sins, and sends us to hell when the points get too high. Or kills our kids. People regularly assume, wrongly, God’s gonna make us suffer a bit to restore our karmic balance. Yeah we’re repentant, but we _owe_ the universe a little something for our wayward life before. That’s how people behave, so that’s how we presume God behaves. But that’s not who God is. So _learn_ who God is. Don’t just assume it; read your bible and learn what he’s like. So let’s see Elijah reveal what God’s like. #### Undoing the boy’s death. At this point the widow was obviously unhappy with the prophet of the LORD, and Elijah wasn’t happy about the circumstances either. So he took the boy to his room: _1 Kings_ 17.19-21 KWL 19 _Elijah_ told her, “Give me your¹ son.” He took _the boy_ from her lap took him into the upper room where he lived, and laid _the boy_ upon his bed. 20 _Elijah_ cried out to the LORD, saying, saying, “LORD my god, why _is this_ evil also _coming_ against the widow with whom I’m staying, to put her son to death?” 21He breathed into the boy thrice, and cried out, “LORD my God, return this boy’s soul to his _body_.” Ancient middle eastern houses had flat roofs, which were generally used as a patio. Sometimes they built an extra room on them, an “upper room,” which you had to access from a ladder or stairs outside. Elijah was living in this widow’s upper room. He decided he needed this space to cure the boy, so he carried him upstairs and shouted at God a bit. “LORD, why is this happening?” Fair question. The widow presumes the LORD is doing it to punish her, but Elijah presumes no such thing. He _does_ consider it evil, but note he doesn’t directly accuse God of doing the evil. Because who’s to say it’s God? True, God does decide how long our lifespan is gonna be, and takes people when he decides it’s our time. Other times he doesn’t; we’re killed by war, disease, disasters, accidents, and crime. Sometimes they’re caused or passively allowed by God; sometimes not, and we mustn’t assume like determinists that all these things are “acts of God.” They’re not. But _even if_ God was behind the boy’s death, we constantly forget God considers death negotiable. We think of death as so final, we never even _imagine_ —even though Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Paul, Peter, and _thousands_ of Christians have raised the dead—that maybe death isn’t the final word we make it out to be. Elijah never figured, “Well he’s died; nothing to be done now.” He wanted the LORD to put the boy’s soul back. Next, there’s some odd wording. What it literally says is Elijah וַיִּתְמֹדֵ֤ד עַל הַיֶּ֙לֶד֙ שָׁלֹ֣שׁ פְּעָמִ֔ים/_way-yitmodád al-hay-yeléd šalóš p’amim_ , “he measured out the boy three paces.” It’s a _weird_ statement, which almost makes it sound like Elijah was measuring him for a shroud. But it _can’t_ mean that. It’s likely an idiom, and we’ve lost track of what it more accurately means. Bibles have historically interpreted it, “He stretched himself”—as if to measure him—“over the boy three times,” which isn’t any clearer. The Septuagint went with, “He blew into the boy thrice”—it makes it sound like Elijah was doing some kind of artificial respiration. The ancients didn’t know about any such thing, but maybe God, who does, instructed Elijah to try it. Anyway that’s what the translators of the Septuagint figured it meant, so I went with the Septuagint. Whatever Elijah did, worked. _1 Kings_ 17.22-24 KWL 22The LORD heard Elijah’s voice, and returned the boy’s soul to his _body_. He lived. 23Elijah took the boy, took him down from the the upper room into the house, and gave him to his mother. Elijah said, “See? Your¹ son’s alive.” 24The woman told Elijah, “Now this I know: You _’re_ ¹ a man of God, and the LORD’s word in your¹ mouth _is_ true.” The LORD’s response was to put the boy’s lifeforce back into him, and Elijah brought him down to his mother. She immediately took back everything she said against the prophet. Guess there _was_ some value in having him around! But the widow’s final statement points out something more: She knows the LORD’s word in Elijah’s mouth is true because Elijah _did stuff_. It’s not enough to talk about God, or proclaim Jesus to people: Acts have to follow. And I don’t just mean good behavior. Acts _of power_ have to follow. In _Mark’s_ Long Ending, Jesus points out those who follow him are gonna do miracles. They’ll throw out demons, speak in tongues, survive venom and poison, and cure the sick. Mk 16.17-18 If we truly follow a wonder-working God, we’re gonna work wonders. If we don’t or can’t, or we’re faking any “miracles” we do—if we’re simply frauds—why should anyone believe our words? Why should anyone believe our Lord? Yeah, I’ve heard from cessationists who absolutely _hate_ when I say things like that, because they keep insisting God doesn’t do that stuff anymore. Really it’s _they_ who refuse to do that stuff, and they’ll answer to Jesus for their lack of obedience. Jesus’s brother James taught us to pray like Elijah, and pointed out miracles followed those prayers. Jm 5.16-18 Why give those instructions, with those examples, if we _can’t_ do the very same things as Elijah?

#### Mark 1.2-6, Exodus 23.20, Isaiah 40.1-8, Malachi 3.1. The very first appearance of John the baptist we see in ancient literature is in the _Gospel According to Mark_ , which was written sometime in the 60s CE. The other synoptic gospels quote _Mark_ , and _John_ is likely a response to _Luke_ and fills in some of its blanks. So since _Mark_ was written first, here’s how he described John. _Mark_ 1.2-6 KWL 2Just as it was written by the prophet Isaiah— _“Look, I send my messenger before your¹ face,_ _who will prepare my way”_ for you.¹ Ex 23.20 3 _“A voice shouting in the wilderness,_ _‘Prepare the Lord’s way!_ _Make his paths straight!’ ”_ Is 40.3 4— _so_ comes John, who baptizes in the wilderness and preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5All the land of Judea are going out to _John_ ,ᴾ and all the Jerusalemites. They’re being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. 6John was wearing camelhair, a leather moneybelt round his waist, and eating locusts and undomesticated honey. 7 _John_ is preaching, “One stronger than me, comes after me. I’m not worthy to bend down and loose his sandal strap. 8I baptize you² in water; he will baptize you² in the Holy Spirit.” _Mark_ begins his gospel by quoting _Exodus_ and mixing it up with the prophet Isaiah. Yep, it’s a “bible difficulty,” for those who refuse to say it’s an error. But it’s _not_ a bible difficulty for a lot of ’em, because they go with the way the Textus Receptus puts it: _Mark_ 1.2 KWL (_from TR_) According to _what_ was written in the Prophets— _“Look, I send my messenger before your¹ face,_ _who will prepare my way”_ before you.¹ Ex 23.20 Yep, later generations of Christians corrected _Mark_ ’s error. Nice of ’em! But this is one of the many reasons I don’t buy the inerrantists’ belief that the bible had no errors in the originals. It’s entirely possible there were _more_ errors in the originals. And in case this idea makes you anxious, I remind you _none_ of the “difficulties” we find in the bible undermine the truth of the gospel. Jesus is still Lord, still the way the truth and the life, still should be followed, still saves us from sin, still returning. Still uses fallible men, like Mark, to share the gospel. Still can use _you_ to do it too—and when you make mistakes, he can easily work around them. Don’t worry about being perfect; just follow Jesus as best you can, and trust _him_ considerably more than your resources. Okay, mini-sermon over. So the Textus changed the original to “the Prophets” instead of “the prophet Isaiah.” Well _that_ doesn’t look like a difficulty! Except… it still is. To the Jews, “the Prophets” either refers to * the second batch of Old Testament books written before the Babylonian exile (_Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi_), or * the books of prophecy written by the LORD’s prophets (_Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi_). _Exodus_ is in neither of those groups. It’s in the Law, not the Prophets. So, still a difficulty. The inerrantists try to weasel out of it by pretending the quote in _Mark_ 1.2 comes from _Malachi_ 3.1, not _Exodus_ —and _Malachi_ is in the Prophets, no matter which definition of “the Prophets” you go with. But it’s really not from _Malachi_ at all, which I’ll show you in the next section. #### The Old Testament quotes. Maybe it’s easiest if I just straight-up use a chart. Old Testament quotes come from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament which was Mark’s bible. MK 1.2| ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου… _Idú apostéllo ton ángyelón mu pro prosópu su…_ ---|--- EX 23.20| Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου… _Ke idú egó apostéllo ton ángyelón mu pro prosópu su…_ ML 3.1| ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου… _Idú egó exapostéllo ton ángyelú mu…_ Which one, _Exodus_ or _Malachi_ , is the best match to the scripture _Mark_ quoted? Right you are, _Exodus_. If you drop the words καὶ/_ke_ “and,” and ἐγὼ̀/_egó_ , “I” (and they’re kinda redundant), it’s word-for-word. Here’s the whole _Exodus_ verse. Red letters ’cause it’s the LORD talking to Moses individually, which is why every “you” is singular—both here, _and_ in _Mark_ 1.2. It’s to an individual, not the crowd; not Israel; not humanity. _Exodus_ 23.20 KWL (_from LXX_) _“And look, I send my angel before your¹ face,_ _so he might guard you¹ in the way,_ _that he might bring you¹_ _to the land I prepare for you.”¹_ “Messenger” and “angel” are both valid translations of ἄγγελόν/_ángyelón_ , the same word in _Exodus_ , _Malachi_ , and _Mark_. In the OT the writers were no doubt thinking of one of the warrior spirits whom the LORD of Armies commands, but _Mark_ clearly meant the very human John bar Zacharias, who fought apathy and evil in his own way. _Malachi_ puts it thisaway. Red letters ’cause it’s still the LORD talking, through Malachi. But this time every “you” is plural, which does _not_ match the gospel. _Malachi_ 3.1 KWL (_from LXX_) _“Look, I send out my angel._ _It will pay attention to the way before my face,_ _and the Lord, who seeks you,²_ _and the angels of the covenant, who want you,²_ _will suddenly come into the temple._ _Look at them come!”_ says the Almighty Lord. It ultimately doesn’t matter if _Mark_ got the address wrong, or just how his bible quote is a mashup of multiple quotes. The important thing is the LORD wants his way straightened, and John is the prophet he sent to help straighten it. On to Isaiah, and I’m gonna quote more of it than _Mark_ does, partly ’cause context, and partly ’cause the other gospels quote it. _Isaiah_ 40.1-8 KWL (_from LXX_) 1 _“Encourage, encourage my people,”_ God says. 2 _“Priests, speak from the heart._ _Jerusalem: Encourage her,_ _so her humiliation _can_ be fulfilled._ _Her sin was released_ _for she took double from the Lord’s hand_ _for all her sins.”_ 3A voice shouting out in the wilderness: “Prepare the Lord’s way! Make a straight path for our God! 4Every valley will be filled and every hill and high place will be humbled. Everything crooked will be _made_ straight and rough places _made_ level. 5The Lord’s glory will be seen, and all flesh will see God’s salvation, for the Lord will speak so. 6A voice _is_ saying, _“Shout!”_ I say, “What will I shout?” _“All flesh _is_ grass._ _All human glory _is_ like a grass blossom._ 7 _Grass dries up._ __Its_ blossom falls off._ 8 _God’s word to us remains_ _into the age _to come_.”_ John elsewhere identifies himself as that voice in the wilderness, Jn 1.23 and nothing more. He was getting people ready for the LORD. He was _also_ getting ’em ready for Messiah, although “Messiah” is a politically loaded term which John wasn’t willing to say in public, and didn’t use. He simply referred to Jesus as ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος/_o opíso mu erhómenos_ , “the [one] coming after me,” whom John emphasizes is far, _far_ greater than he. He’s a prophet too—and substantially more. #### The Old Testament imagery. Next, the weirdness. John was Levite, like his parents, but whereas Levites customarily tried to stay ritually clean all the time so they could perform priestly duties wherever they were situated, John wore camelhair. Mk 1.6 Camels are ritually unclean animals. Lv 11.4 Can’t eat ’em. _Can_ own them, ride them, raise herds of ’em, and base your wealth on them, but after you rode them to your destination, you needed to baptize yourself and wait till sundown before you could go to synagogue or temple. Wearing clothes made from their hair was fine for everyday attire, but a legalistic Israeli would _strongly_ object to you wearing it to worship. There are two kinds of camelhair. There’s the guard hair, the scruffy stuff we’re used to seeing on the outside of a camel, which is stiff and coarse and inflexible. Makes good tents and carpets. Then there’s the undercoat fur, which we _still_ use for clothing; it’s soft and makes really good insulation. John obviously wore clothes made of the undercoat. Unfortunately preachers find out people sometimes used the guard hair to make hairshirts, a deliberately abrasive article of clothing meant to _make one suffer_ , either because they were in mourning and wanted to be miserable, or because they felt they should suffer for their sins. So they presume John was wearing camelhair as a type of sackcloth—and _not_ as a comfortable fabric which’d keep him warm at night. But why would John be in mourning? Why would he feel he needed to suffer for his own sins? Why would he feel the need to wear clothes which made his skin itchy and scratched and raw? And some of the interpreters have some pretty messed-up ideas about why John might feel that way… and none of them sound consistent with John’s mission. Makes more sense that he’d wear clothes made of _proper_ camelhair yarn. Ancient Israelis wore fabric as a belt round their waists, not to hold their pants up (they didn’t wear pants yet), but as pockets. They stuck tools or food or silver in them. John’s wasn’t fabric but leather; an uncommon thing to make a belt of because it wasn’t as flexible as fabric, but if you’re not carrying much it won’t matter. Plus it was reminiscent of the prophet Elijah of Tishbe, who was _also_ known for wearing a leather belt. 2Ki 1.8 Since John lived in the wilderness, this meant he didn’t come near enough to civilization to get food from the Levite storehouse, or glean anything. He had to hunt and gather, and John didn’t want to spend any time on that, so he chose to live off insects. Locusts are kosher, Lv 11.22 and a decent source of protein. Undomesticated honey means it definitely wasn’t the more common date syrup the Israelis called honey; it was made by actual bees. It’s also likely people brought John food when they came to him, in gratitude or devotion, but John’s reliable, _regular_ source of food came from bugs. Since John is the second coming of Elijah, this appearance _Mark_ describes would definitely have given people Elijah vibes. Here’s this wild man dressed in camelhair and a leather belt, saying you gotta show your repentance by getting clean, saying someone mightier than him is coming. Israelis who’d grown up with Pharisee interpretations of the End Times would think, “Is this Elijah? This sounds like Elijah. Is Messiah this ‘mightier one’ he’s talking about?” and would go to the Jordan to see for themselves… and end up repenting, and getting baptized. And this is how John _did_ prepare the way of the Lord.

In last week’s prayer article, “Signs it’s God’s voice,” I brought up a pastor who wrote a list of ways we can tell God is talking to us. I took issue with them because they imply we can determine it’s God _without_ properly confirming it. _With_ confirmation they can be useful, but without confirmation they’re just ways we psyche ourselves into thinking it’s God when it may not be. _At all._ There were two other items in his list which I didn’t yet bring up. That’s because they’re not really “signs it’s God’s voice”—they’re warnings. He wanted his readers to know if we don’t listen to God, there will be consequences. And no, he wasn’t talking about _natural_ consequences—that when God’s warns us away from something, but we’re not listening and go there anyway, bad stuff will happen, and God was trying to prevent that. Or when God tells us of an opportunity, but we’re not listening and miss it, and that’s wasted potential. Nope; really he was talking about _curses_. If we don’t listen to God, he will _punish us_. He didn’t phrase it that way, and probably never would. But that’s exactly what he meant: God will _hurt us_ if we won’t listen. It’s a messed-up way of thinking, but he’s not the only pastor I’ve heard this from. _Lots_ of Christians imagine God as a harsh Father, not a benevolent Father. A father who’s more like the harsh parents _they_ grew up with, and they’re projecting that upon him instead of studying what Jesus has to say about him. So when they read the Old Testament passages about consequences for the Hebrews’ sins, they imagine God’s actively smiting them, instead of passively stepping back and letting nature and their enemies have at ’em. They proclaim, not a God who corrects his children, but a God who _beats_ them and calls it “discipline.” Jesus teaches no such thing, so let’s be rid of this false idea. God doesn’t _need_ to add to the consequences of not listening to him. It’s gonna harm us aplenty when we don’t! I already mentioned missed opportunities, and you have _no idea_ how many opportunities present themselves in our lives. And God knows about _all of them_. And so can we, if we’re listening and are obedient. And we’ll miss nearly all of them when we aren’t. That alone should get us to pay attention. You know those Christians who appear to have _tons_ of good luck, good fortune, and blessings coming their way? True, some of them are exaggerating, and some of them are big fat liars. But some of them are totally telling the truth: They’ll do anything God tells them, and they’re listening for it. So God’s pointing them towards every opportunity around them. He knows they’ll make the most of it, and bless him, and help him grow his kingdom. You can do that too, y’know. #### “If you don’t respond, God’ll stop talking.” The threat this pastor makes, is that if we won’t listen to God, or won’t respond to the stuff we know God’s telling us, God will figure, “Well there’s no point in talking to _them_ ,” and just stop talking. On what basis does he make this claim? Well he’s thinking of certain sinful leaders in the Old Testament. The head priest Eli, who let his sons rob and rape worshipers, 1Sa 2.12-17, 22 so apparently God had to send him prophets because Eli wasn’t listening. Or Saul ben Kish, who defied God so many times God didn’t even bother to speak to Saul through prophets. 1Sa 28.6 True, when we’re not personally listening to God, he _has_ to resort to other ways of getting our attention. (And no, _not_ disasters. Disasters happen to everyone, and aren’t by default “acts of God,” no matter what insurance companies claim.) He’ll have to send prophets, or freaky dreams, or even make an appearance. If we absolutely _have_ to listen to him, he’ll make sure we do. Whether we heed him is another thing. But this idea that God quits trying when we quit listening? It’s not biblical. The _whole point_ of Jesus appearing to Paul of Tarsus was because Paul wasn’t listening—and Jesus needed him to. I like the way the First Nations Version puts it: Acts 26.13-14 FNV 13“Then at midday, O honored chief, I saw a light from the spirit-world above shining down on me and my fellow travelers. 14We all had fallen to the ground when I heard a voice speaking to me in our tribal language. “ _‘Man Who Questions, Man Who Questions,’_ the voice _called my name twice, and_ asked, _‘why are you pursuing and mistreating me? It is a hard and painful thing to fight against me, like a horse pushing back against the spurs.’_ ” Paul was only destroying himself by fighting Jesus, and Jesus had to stop him before he went further. And if we’re doing likewise, God likewise intervenes. He doesn’t give up on us. _We_ do that. God doesn’t stop warning, stop challenging, stop correcting, stop instructing, nor stop loving. God is patient and kind, wants us to listen, and _isn’t_ gonna make it harder to listen when we finally snap out of our apathy and start trying. He’s right there. Same as he’s always been. So if you haven’t been listening to God lately, you have no reason to be discouraged from starting it up again. God’s eager for you to get right back into it. Or eager for you to get started. Either way, he’s like the father of the prodigal son: Welcome back! He has _so_ much to tell you.

Part of prayer is hearing God, and part of hearing God is confirming we truly heard him. You wanna _know_ it’s God, you go find a fellow Christian who also hears God, and compare notes. But people don’t _wanna_ go find a fellow Christian and do that. We’d much rather tell ourselves, “Oh, _I_ know what God sounds like,” be accountable to no one, and run with whatever we’re pretty sure he told us. Especially when it’s something which really appeals to our flesh. So when we look for advice about how to hear from God, or how to _know_ we’ve just heard from God, we’ll immediately uphold any shortcuts which tell us, “No you’re right; it’s totally God.” Which never threaten to make us feel foolish when a fellow Christian responds, “Oh God told me something very different,” or “I’m _really_ not sure that’s God.” Which never require us to let iron sharpen iron. I once got a list from a pastor on some ways we can tell it’s God talking to us. They’re all problematic because—again—they don’t require us to confirm anything with our fellow Christians. They don’t encourage us to interact with our Christian community. They encourage us to go it alone. So naturally he got a lot of positive feedback from people who were _thrilled_ to hear they didn’t have to talk with fellow Christians about what they thought God told ’em. Now they could confirm it’s God by themselves! In private. With no one to embarrass them for how fleshly their “still, small voice of God” actually sounds. #### Some examples? Sure. First bit of advice this pastor gave was, “The Holy Spirit lives within you, therefore many of the things you _think_ are your own thoughts, ideas, impressions, feelings, and desires, are really the Holy Spirit speaking to your own spirit. So pay attention to all those things. It may be God!” This is _partly_ true. The Spirit does indeed live inside us. He was sealed to us when we first became Christian, and “anyone joined to the Lord is one spirit with him.” 1Co 6.17 CSB So yeah, the Holy Spirit _is_ gonna drop ideas into our spirits, and some of those clever ideas we think _we_ have, are in fact God-ideas. The more we pay attention to our thoughts, the more we’re gonna detect God speaking to us through them. But but _but_. Still gotta confirm these “God-ideas” _are_ actually God-ideas. Because far too many Christians never bother to confirm anything, insist _all_ their bright ideas are God-ideas, and _treat_ them as such… and any outside observer will quickly discern these are just selfish schemes which didn’t originate from God at _all_. Christians are just mixing up the voices in their head with God, and following themselves instead of him. The pastor didn’t point this out—that sometimes it’s _not_ God behind our cleverest ideas—which simply perpetuates the problem. These ideas have to be _tested_. Confirm they’re God before you embrace them! Second: “If it’s really the voice of the Lord, it’s going to be marked by the Lord’s nature. It’s going to love others like the Lord does. It’s going to benefit other people, sometimes at your expense. It’s going to require a sacrifice on your part. It’s going to force you to deny your flesh.” Again, _partly_ true. Yes, everything God tells us is going to be consistent with his character; it’s going to reflect the fruit of the Spirit. God’s going to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled. God’s gonna expect us to be those things too. We’ll be tempted to be fleshly; we must not be. And yes, sometimes God’s instructions will cost us. We’ll have to spend time and money on them. We’ll have to be patient and self-controlled. Sometimes we’ll have to deny ourselves the things we want more. Typically they’ll be things we can do without. Problem is, we’re not always the best at determining what we have available to sacrifice. Notice there are a lot of Christians who give up time and resources so they can minister to others… but the resources they choose to give up is _not_ their work time, nor their leisure time. It’s their _family_ time. It’s the resources they’re meant to put towards their adult responsibilities: They’ll skip chores and duties, and force their spouse to take up the slack they’ve created, and tempt them to resent God because of it. And this is hardly _God’s_ fault. Or Christians will give up all their rest time, and burn themselves out—and think they _should_ ; that God _told_ them to. He did not. The idea to work themselves ragged was _theirs_ , and theirs alone. Jesus offers us rest, Mt 11.28 not burnout. His yoke is easy, and it only appears burdensome because _we_ pile on all the extra weight. Then blame God for it. So yes, sometimes God is gonna tell us we need to give up some things so we can follow him better. And if they’re harmful and sinful, it’s kinda self-evident we need to give them up, whether God directly told us to or not. But if they’re _not_ , let’s not assume this is a God-idea just because it appears to be self-sacrificial. God only tells us to give up things that’ll truly undermine us. When they’re only _our_ ideas, we’ll give up too much, too little, or the wrong things. When they’re devilish ideas, they’ll _definitely_ be the wrong things. Again: Confirmation! Lastly (he had more advice, but I’m only going with three things today): “If it’s really the voice of the Lord, it’s going to stay with you. It will be very hard to shake! But if it’s not, it’ll quickly pass away.” Meh, many of my _own_ ideas are very hard to shake. But they’re my ideas. I know this because they _don‘t_ reflect the Spirit’s fruit; some are kinda fleshly. Snide remarks, vengeful attitudes, selfish plans: _I_ might like ’em, but I’m no fool; I _know_ they’re not God-ideas. And other clever plans which we can’t get out of our heads—plans to prosper ourselves, to make ourselves feel good or self-justified—aren’t so obviously fleshly, but they’re _still_ our own ideas. They’re not God’s. They need to be _submitted_ to God, just as James taught us: _James_ 4.13-17 CSB 13Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will travel to such and such a city and spend a year there and do business and make a profit.” 14Yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring—what your life will be! For you are like vapor that appears for a little while, then vanishes. 15Instead, you should say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” 16But as it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. 17So it is sin to know the good and yet not do it. And if at any point God tells us, “You know that grand idea you have? Don’t do it,” we _definitely_ need to hear _that_ message. #### It’s not _bad_ advice. But confirm everything! This pastor’s advice isn’t far different from other things I’ve heard from other Christians about whether we’ve heard from God. It’s out there in the popular Christian culture. It works its way into sermons and advice. And as the heading says, it’s not _bad_ advice. But it _can_ be, when we lack the wisdom to realize where it falls apart. And where does it fall apart? When we follow it _without_ confirming these messages came from God by talking with fellow Christians. When we follow it specifically so that we can _avoid_ those fellow Christians, and discern whether it’s God’s voice _on our own_. Without input from other Spirit-indwelt Christians. True, even when we confirm this stuff with other Christians’ help, we might _still_ get it wrong. We can miss the point, or that fellow Christian we go to might _share_ our selfish attitudes and we’ll lead one another astray. Confirming stuff with fellow Christians isn’t an infallible method. But going it alone is _most definitely_ fallible. If I gotta choose between “might go wrong” and “definitely wrong,” the first option always makes more sense.

#### John 1.19-23, Matthew 17.10-13. There are two series I’m starting: One on the prophet Elijah, and one on the prophet John bar Zechariah, also called John the baptist. Yes, I know the custom is to capitalize “baptist,” along with way too many other things in Christendom. But if I capitalize the word, I mean people and things of the Baptist tradition, started by English dissenters in the 1600s and continued in the United States by Roger Williams and John Clarke. The prophet John is “the baptist” in that he ritually washed (Greek ἐβάπτισεν/_eváptisen_ “baptized”) people as a sign of their repentance, Mt 3.11 which is _not_ traditionally why people ritually cleansed themselves. It was odd, so it got people’s attention, made him stand out, and drew people to him. In the Pharisees’ beliefs about the End Times, they taught before Messiah came to Israel to overthrow the Romans and rule the world, God would send forerunners. _Multiple_ forerunners, actually. There’d be the Prophet, and there’d be the second coming of Elijah. Obviously the Pharisee End Times Timeline had a few screws loose—same as all the Christian End Times Timelines—because they mixed up God’s benevolent intentions with their own selfish desires to see God smite anyone they considered their enemies. Human depravity regularly befouls our End Times views, and makes each one more fearful and vengeful, and less Christlike, than the last. But _some_ parts they got right. There _is_ an End Times Prophet… and he’s Jesus. And there _is_ a second coming of Elijah… but he’s not a _literal_ second coming of Elijah; he’s someone just like Elijah, and that’d be John. Although John was entirely sure he’s _not_ Elijah, and said so: _John_ 1.19-23 KWL 19This is John’s witness when the Judeans of Jerusalem send priests and Levites _to him_ so they could ask him, “Who are you?”¹ 20 _John_ confesses, and doesn’t refuse _them_. He confesses this: “I’m not Messiah.” 21 _The Judeans_ ask _John_ ᴾ, “Who then? Are you¹ Elijah?” He says, “I’m not.” “Are you¹ the Prophet?” He answers, “No.” 22 _The Judeans_ tell _John_ ᴾ “Who are you?¹ —so we can give an answer to those who send us to you.¹ What do you¹ say about yourself?”¹ 23 _John_ says, “I’m ‘the voice shouting out in the wilderness, “Straighten the Lord’s road!” ’ just as the prophet Isaiah says.” So he’s neither the Prophet nor Elijah; he’s some _third_ guy they hadn’t detected in their End Times studies. But it turns out… John was wrong. (Yep, John put an error in our bibles!) Jesus says he totally _is_ Elijah. And Jesus is absolutely in a position to know, so whenever I quote what John had to say about himself, I make sure to tell you Jesus corrects him. _Matthew_ 17.10-13 KWL 10The students are questioning _Jesus_ ,ᴾ saying, “So why do the scribes say this?— ‘Elijah has to come first’?” 11In reply {Jesus} says, _“Elijah comes{first} indeed,_ _and restores everything._ 12 _I tell you² this:_ _Elijah comes _now_._ _They don’t acknowledge him,_ _but do to him whatever they want._ _In this same way the Son of Man_ _is about to suffer under them.”_ 13Then the students understand this— _Jesus_ is speaking to them about John the baptist. #### No really; he’s Elijah. Back in Jesus’s day, people figured the End was near. People certainly _wanted_ the End to be near—especially since the prognosticators who taught about the End were promising them a happy ending. Same as now. Since John was gaining a lot of attention, Pharisees wanted to know whether John considered himself one of their End Times guys. They might’ve had their doubts. But John immediately silenced their doubts by saying nope, he’s none of them. He’s just a voice in the wilderness, like Isaiah described, telling people to get ready ’cause the Master is coming. _Isaiah_ 40.3-5 KWL 3A voice in the wilderness calls: “Clear the LORD’s path! Smooth out a desert highway for our God! 4Lift up every valley! Lower every mountain and hill! Rough ground _will_ be level. Rugged ground _will_ be a valley. 5The LORD’s glory will be revealed. All flesh, together, _will_ see, for the LORD’s mouth says.” No, this “voice in the wilderness” is not a specific prophecy about John the baptist. It’s just a verse John borrowed to describe what he was up to. Because anybody who speaks up for God in a lawless, fruitless, godless culture is a voice in the wilderness. Any Christian can be such a voice. Many Christians have been. Likewise anyone who tells people to get ready for Jesus’s second coming—especially to a culture who’s more interested in _appearing_ to follow God instead of bearing actual good fruit—is a similar voice in a wild, undeveloped, untended land. Wouldn’t hurt to have more of them. But part of the reason the crowds came to check out John, was his lifestyle. He _looked_ like they imagined Elijah would look. The camelhair clothing and leather belt? Mk 1.6, Mt 3.4 Deliberately meant to remind people of Elijah, the prophet of rain and fire who wore the very same getup. 2Ki 1.8 John was intentionally mimicking Elijah. Stands to reason people’d wonder if he _was_ Elijah. Problem is, Pharisees had very specific End Times beliefs about Elijah. Christians aren’t the only ones with wild and wacky End Times theories. Plenty of religions have ’em. Pharisees cherry-picked scriptures from _Daniel, Ezekiel_ , and other prophets, and spliced together their very own End Times timeline. And they added books from the pseudepigrapha—books which claimed to be written by famous Old Testament saints like Enoch, Moses, and Ezra, but weren’t really. Much like End Times prognosticators who quote the Left Behind novels and John Hagee books far more often than _Revelation_. The most popular Pharisee theory of the day, claimed Israel would undergo 12 tribulations before the End. Then after the 12th ended, “the Prophet”—the very last prophet in history, a prophet like Moses Dt 18.15 whom Israelis were obligated to heed—would appear. Pharisees didn’t agree whether this Prophet was a whole new prophet, or the second coming of Elijah. (Elijah hadn’t died, remember? Got raptured. Went straight to heaven in a whirlwind. 2Ki 2.11) If you took _Malachi_ literally—and plenty still do—Elijah should be literally coming back. _Malachi_ 4.4-6 KWL (3.22-24) 4 _“Remember the Law of Moses—_ _my servant whom I commanded at Horeb._ _Statues and rulings_ _for all Israel._ 5 _Look, I send you² Elijah the prophet_ _before the coming great and awesome day of the L ORD._ 6 __Elijah_ will return parents’ heart _s_ to _their_ children,_ _and children’s heart _s_ to their parents_ _lest I might come smite the land with a ban.”_ Elijah would straighten roads, get parents and children to love one another, and work together with the Prophet to prep Israel for Messiah. Other Pharisees insisted yes to all this, but Elijah and the Prophet are the same guy. Either way they’d do this, then Messiah would come, defeat Israel’s enemies, and rule the nation for 400 years… although some Pharisees claimed nope, there were _two_ Messiahs; one who’d die, Is 53 and one who’d reign. Nope, they weren’t unanimous about their End Times timeline; no more than our prognosticators nowadays. Despite looking like Elijah, 2Ki 1.8, Mk 1.6 John insisted he wasn’t. He was a lowercase-P prophet; a whole other guy. Nobody special. And maybe he honestly didn’t think so. Which is a little weird because his father Zechariah had been told he was _very_ special. The angel Gabriel had interrupted a temple service to tell him so. _Luke_ 1.17 KWL “He will precede before _the Lord_ ᴾ in the spirit and power of Elijah, turning parents’ hearts back to _their_ children and the disobedient _back_ to the wisdom of justice, preparing for the Lord a rebuilt people.” Now okay, “spirit and power of Elijah” indicates he’s an archetypical prophet _like_ Elijah; not literally Elijah. And that’s fair: John’s not _literally_ Elijah. If the Pharisees thought Elijah was _literally_ returning to earth, same as Christians and Muslims say Jesus is _literally_ returning to earth, this clearly isn’t that. The skies aren’t parting and Elijah’s coming down. John was born to two old Levite prophets, and intended to be a prophet since birth, but that’s clearly not a literal second coming of Elijah. Except, y’know, Jesus said he _is_ Elijah. He fulfills the prophecies about Elijah. It’s totally John. _Matthew_ 11.11-15 KWL 11 _“Amen! I tell you none born of women_ _rose greater than John the baptist._ __Yet_ the smallest in heaven’s kingdom_ _is greater than him._ 12 _From the days of John the baptist till now,_ _heaven’s kingdom has been abused;_ _abusive people snatch it away._ 13 _For all the Prophets and the Law_ _prophesy till John._ 14 _And if you wish to receive _this_ ,_ __John_ ᴾ is the _second_ coming of Elijah._ 15 _One who has ears,_ _listen!”_ He’s not _like_ the second coming of Elijah; he _is_ the second coming of Elijah. When the LORD told his prophets Elijah was coming, this is what he meant. The LORD didn’t mean it literally; _we_ shouldn’t presume there’s any Elijah yet to come. #### Prognosticators who think Elijah is yet to come. But you already know I’m gonna talk about those End Times prognosticators who claim John is only a _type_ of Elijah’s second coming; that there’s an _actual_ second coming yet to come. There are these two guys in _Revelation_ 11. Two witnesses. They wear sackcloth, prophesy 1,260 days, stop the rain like Elijah, and call down plagues like Moses. Rv 11.3-6 And since some biblical interpreters have simply _gotta_ take the scriptures as literally as they can plausibly get away with—and sometimes even further than that—these guys insist the two witnesses _literally are_ the second coming of Elijah and Moses. Although not always Moses. Moses died. Dt 34.5-7 He ain’t coming back till the resurrection. For that matter, in this vision, the two witnesses get killed, Rv 11.7 then get raised and raptured, Rv 11.11-12 and it seems _really_ unlikely that God would raise Moses from the dead, send him to be a witness to “Sodom and Egypt,” Rv 11.8 then let him be killed and raised _again_. When we get resurrected, the idea is we’ll never die again. So they swap “Moses” out with another guy from the bible who was raptured before dying: Enoch. There; now these witnesses _can_ die. They didn’t die before, so they still owe God a death. I’m gonna rant for a second about this “owe God a death” idea. Jesus atoned for humanity. This atonement works retroactively; Jesus died for Elijah, same as he did for you and me. That’s why, when Jesus returns and the rapture happens, every Christian still living is _not gonna die_. 1Th 4.17 _Nobody_ “still owes God a death.” Not us, not Elijah. Saying he does, implies Jesus didn’t die for him—and since some of these prognosticators are dispensationalists, they’ll actually claim Elijah’s under some previous system of salvation where he _earns_ his salvation. But there _is_ no such system. We’re saved by grace. Always have been. Anyway, these two witnesses are supposedly “Moses and Elijah,” or “Enoch and Elijah,” and this is the _real_ second coming of Elijah. Which has yet to happen. So what about John the baptist? Doesn’t count. Ignoring Jesus’s teachings about John the baptist to promote your favorite End Times beliefs, is a _ridiculously obvious_ sign you have no respect for the teachings of Jesus. I shouldn’t _have_ to tell you it’s okay to dismiss absolutely everything such prognosticators claim. But I’m still gonna: If they won’t prioritize Jesus over their teachings, they’re false teachers. _Stop listening_ to these fools; they’ll lead you astray.

#### 1 Kings 16.29 - 17.1. Four prophets in the Hebrew scriptures stand out above all the others: Abraham ben Terah, Moses ben Amram, David ben Jesse, and Elijah—we don’t know Elijah’s father’s name, but we know where he’s from. (Or _think_ we do; I’ll explain in a bit.) So we know him as Elijah of Tishbe. True, you’re gonna find people who want to add other favorite prophets to this list. Or debate whether David counts as a prophet, ’cause he was primarily a king. But these four were big deals because hearing from God led ’em to _act_ , and what they did significantly influenced ancient Israeli history. We get to the first appearance of Elijah right after the first appearance of Ahab ben Omri, whom the Deuteronomistic Historian considers the very worst of Israel’s kings. Right here, you’ll see why. _1 Kings_ 16.29- 17.1KWL 29Ahab ben Omri became king over Israel in the 38th year of Asa, king of Judah. Ahab ben Omri ruled over Israel in Samaria for 22 years. 30Ahab ben Omri did evil in the LORD’s eyes, more than everyone before him. 31It became _trivial_ to walk in the sins of Jeroboam ben Nabat. _Ahab_ took the woman Jezebel bat Ethbaal — _he was_ king of the Sidonians— and went to enslave _himself_ to the Baal, and popularize him. 32 _Ahab_ erected an altar to Baal in the house of Baal he built in Samaria. 33Ahab made an Asherah _pole_. Ahab added to what he did to provoke the LORD, god of Israel, more than all Israel’s kings before him. 34In _Ahab’s_ ᴾ day, Khiyel of Bethel _re_ built Jericho. With Abiram his firstborn, he established her; with Segub his youngest he set up her door, according to the LORD’s word which he said by the hand of Joshua ben Nun. 1Elijah of Tishbe, a settler in Gilead, told Ahab, “By the life of the LORD, God of Israel, whose face I stand _before_ , for these _next_ years dew and rain _will come only_ by the word of my mouth.” And that’s the entirety of our introduction to Elijah. Nothing more about his background other than he comes from Tishbe, which is present-day el-Ishtib, Jordan, also called Tell Mar Elias. about 53km south from Lake Tiberias, in the mountains. There are those who claim תִּשְׁבִּ֜י/_tišbí_ , “Tishbite,” actually means “nomad”—it’s not where he’s from but what he is. Maybe. Very little is known about Tishbe. Elsewhere in _Kings_ we’re told Elijah is hairy and wore leather, 2Ki 1.8 and from this most Christians assume he was a Nazirite, an ascetic who swore a special vow to abstain from grapes, corpses, and cutting one’s hair. I’m not sure he _was_ Nazirite, because he raised a boy from the dead, and touched him in order to do it, 1Ki 17.19 so that’d break a Nazirite oath. Oh, and don’t forget that glass of wine we leave him in the Passover seder. Since there’s so little to say about Elijah, let’s back up to Ahab. #### The divided kingdom, and bad kings. Solomon ben David had created a golden age for ancient Israel, but the Deuteronomistic Historian implies he kinda did it on the backs of the poor. (Much like the United States’s own Gilded Age, and to a degree the present day.) So when leaders of the 13 tribes came to Solomon’s son Rehoboam for relief, 1Ki 12.3-4 and Rehoboam said he was only gonna be _worse_ than his father, 1Ki 12.14 the northern tribes rejected him as king, 1Ki 12.16 and Israel was split in two, named for the biggest tribes in their factions: Ephraim in the north, and Judah in the south. (The Historian still refers to Ephraim as “Israel.”) Ephraim made Jeroboam ben Nebat, one of Solomon’s former administrators, their king. 1Ki 12.20 Out of fear the Israelis of his kingdom might switch loyalty after visiting the LORD’s temple in Jerusalem, 1Ki 12.26-27 Jeroboam went heretic: He set up golden bulls to worship at Dan and Bethel, 1Ki 12.28-29 and told the Israelis to worship at their altars instead. _Technically_ they were still worshiping the LORD, but because they were using golden bulls to represent him, the Historian is entirely sure they really weren’t. Jeroboam’s family was the third dynasty to rule northern Israel, after Saul’s and David’s. Omri’s was technically the sixth. There’d been a lot of overthrowing and rebellion since Jeroboam. (Contrast this with the fact David’s family never stopped ruling Judah.) Omri overthrew the guy who overthrew the previous king, ruled 12 years, established Samaria as Ephraim’s capital, and _sucked_ as a follower of the LORD. 1Ki 16.25-26 He died in 873BC, and his son Ahab took the throne. Ahab wasn’t any better than his dad. Worse, according to the Historian, because he wasn’t a heretic; he was an outright pagan. He didn’t even _try_ to follow the LORD; he worshiped “Baal,” which was the title of various Palestinian gods, and since he interacted with the Sidonians it’s likely their god Hadad. Ahab didn’t just revere this Baal Hadad for political reasons; he _really_ worshiped him. He worshiped Baal with the same kind of enthusiasm King David had for the LORD. But way more carnal, ’cause Baalism included ritual sex. Yeah, _now_ you know why Baal was such a temptation for so many Israelis. He never, _ever_ had to answer your prayers; he simply needed pretty priestesses. And, if you swung that way, priests. Ahab married the daughter of King Ethbaal of Sidon. Flavius Josephus claims Ethbaal was actually a Baalist priest. Ahab installed an altar and temple of Baal in Samaria, with an Asherah pole—a sacred wooden pillar used in the worship of the goddess Asherah, usually depicted as Hadad’s consort. Ahab _also_ permitted someone to rebuilt Jericho. Joshua ben Nun had cursed anyone who dared try: _Joshua_ 6.26 KWL At this time Joshua had _the Israelis_ swear, saying, “Before the LORD’s face, the man is cursed who rises up and _re_ builds this city Jericho. With his firstborn, he will establish her; with his youngest, he will set up her door.” This reference to the firstborn and the youngest: If you get the idea these are just prophecies about the re-founder doing construction with his kids, nope. They’re cursed too. Many bibles will insert the words, “at the cost of,” or “with the loss of”—implying they’ll be killed in the construction. The Septuagint inserted the fulfillment of this curse into the verse. Changed the guy‘s name, but still. _Joshua_ 6.26 KWL (from LXX) On that day Joshua made _the Israelis_ swear before the Lord, saying, “A curse upon the person who will _re_ build this city! With his firstborn he will establish her, and with his youngest he will set up her gates.” And _eventually_ thus did Ozan from Bethel. With Abiram the firstborn, he established her, and with the youngest, whom he spared, he set up her gates. I’m not sure what “whom he spared” means: Did Abiram get killed, but his brother Segub _not_ get killed? Can’t tell. Cursed either way, though. Y’might notice in _Joshua_ , the text says this was Joshua’s oath, but in _Kings_ it says the LORD was saying this through Joshua. _I_ find it interesting, anyway. Politically, a lot of secular historians feel Ahab was actually a _good_ king. He had a successful political marriage; it strengthened ties between Ephraim and Sidon, and it appears he actually got along with Jezebel too. He had material prosperity. His enemies were conquered. He managed to keep from getting overthrown by ambitious generals. Still died in battle, but that’ll happen. But the Deuteronomistic Historian is absolutely correct: Those things have nothing to do with true success. Ahab, as shown in his interactions with Naboth, had no respect for personal rights and property; he was selfish, immoral, and corrupt. As shown in the way he treated Micaiah, he had no respect for the LORD except as a political pawn—and of course the LORD is nobody’s pawn. He’s correctly recognized by generations of Jews, Christians, and Muslims as the worst king Israel ever had. Yep, worse than Herod. #### Enter Elijah. We don’t know whether Elijah was a wandering prophet or an official prophet. We don’t know how extensively he was connected to the local prophetic school. We don’t know if he was rich or poor—though he had a servant, 1Ki 18.41, 19.3 so he could afford an employee. We don’t know what he did for a living, or if he had family wealth. We know next to nothing about Tishbe. The Historian doesn’t give us anything more. He’s just _there_ , telling Ahab: “For these next years dew and rain will come only by the word of my mouth.” We don’t know the context in which Elijah said this: Were the two of them in Ahab’s court?—and did Elijah come as a plaintiff, defendant, bystander, herald, what? Did they meet at the city gates? Was Elijah screaming this at Ahab from a distance as the king went to temple? Elijah didn’t put any conditions on this statement either. He didn’t say, “Stop worshiping Baal and I’ll bring back the rain.” He just said the rain isn’t coming back till he says so. Then he left, and drought came. Super dramatic of him. ’Cause what Elijah was doing here wasn’t demanding _repentance_. He demanded _attention_. And when he came back, he absolutely had it. _Then_ he could make his point. See, as things currently were, after Ahab got finished with his Baal-establishment program, it was really hard to argue the LORD was the strongest god in Ephraim. You could _claim_ the LORD is great until you’re blue in the face, but actions speak louder than words, and nothing gets attention like depriving people of something they absolutely need. Something Baal Hadad—a _weather god_ —was supposed to be the master of! Perhaps we need to do this more often: We need to demonstrate Jesus is more powerful than any of the other gods people depend upon. Sometimes people honestly don’t know who to follow, and _would_ follow Jesus if they only knew he was there. We don’t need to call them to repent; we just need to show them their gods are powerless, and Jesus is almighty. And this can be done in the most basic ways. Wanna demonstrate how Mammon is no real god? Make money worth nothing. Make the stock market take a tumble. Make credit lines dry up. Make real estate lose value… Hmm, wonder if somebody’s been praying for this already?

Recently I saw a meme which listed all the books of the bible, and who wrote ’em. And whoever wrote it got _so many wrong_. It’s a combination of unprovable traditions—Moses did _not_ write “the five books of Moses,” no matter how often people claim he did—and oversimplifications, like “David” writing the psalms and not David plus other psalmists; or “Paul” wrote all his letters but skipping his cowriters. Anyway here’s the _actual_ list of who wrote what—as best we know, anyway. I’m listing the books in King James Version order; your bible might have ’em in a different order. #### Old Testament. 1. **GENESIS.** Don’t know. 2. **EXODUS.** Don’t know, but same author as _Genesis_. 3. **LEVITICUS.** Don’t know, but same author as _Genesis_. 4. **NUMBERS.** Don’t know, but same author as _Genesis_. 5. **DEUTERONOMY.** Don’t know, but _probably_ same author as _Genesis_. > I wrote a whole article on why we don’t know who wrote “the books of Moses,” also known as the Penteteuch, Torah, and “the Law.” Traditionally people have claimed it was Moses ben Amram; I get into why it can’t be. > > I tend to call the author of these books “Moe,” as a placeholder. Still not Moses. > > Hebrew bibles and Christian bibles include the following books in very different orders. Hebrew bibles bunch ’em into two sections—the Prophets, which were completed during the Babylonian exile, and the Writings, which were completed after the Israelis returned and founded Judea. The translators of the Septuagint re-sorted them into history, poetry, and prophecy, and Christians use _that_ order. It means some of these books are gonna have _very_ different dates when they were written—but Christians weren’t always aware of that, so Christian tradition assigned authors to ’em who _can’t_ have written them. 6. **JOSHUA.** The Deuteronomistic Historian. (“Deuteronomist” for short.) 7. **JUDGES.** The Deuteronomist. > Yep, I also wrote a whole article on the Deuteronomist. That’s the person who wrote the histories in the second section of the Old Testament, “the Prophets,” as we can tell by the recurring themes he included in these histories—namely that Israel wasn’t following the Law as spelled out in _Deuteronomy_ , and suffered the consequences. > > Christian tradition claims Joshua ben Nun wrote _Joshua_ (well, till the part Joshua died), and Samuel ben Elkanah wrote _Judges_. But if Joshua wrote any part of _Joshua_ , it would’ve been in the Early Biblical Hebrew of the Torah, and it’s not; it’s a later Hebrew. The same Hebrew used for _Judges, Samuel,_ and _Kings_. There’s other grammatical evidence it was composed later… so yeah, _not_ Joshua. Nor Samuel. > > I tend to call the Deuteronomist “Sam,” as a placeholder. Named for, but is _not_ , Samuel ben Elkanah. 8. **RUTH.** Don’t know. > Tradition claims Samuel ben Elkanah wrote _Ruth_. He can’t have; it’s part of the Writings, and Samuel lived centuries before the Writings were composed. 9. **1 SAMUEL.** The Deuteronomist. 10. **2 SAMUEL.** The Deuteronomist. 11. **1 KINGS.** The Deuteronomist. 12. **2 KINGS.** The Deuteronomist. > _Samuel_ and _Kings_ were each split into two books for the Septuagint, but they originated as two works, not four. Tradition says Samuel wrote the parts of _1 Samuel_ till his death; then the court prophets Gad and Nathan wrote the rest, plus _2 Samuel_. After all, doesn’t _1 Chronicles_ say so? _1 Chronicles_ 27.29-30 ESV 29Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer, 30with accounts of all his rule and his might and of the circumstances that came upon him and upon Israel and upon all the kingdoms of the countries. > But it’s far more likely the author of _Chronicles_ tapped those resources—as that author obviously did with _Samuel, Kings,_ and _Isaiah_. > > As for _Kings_ , tradition says Jeremiah wrote it. Though there’s no evidence for that, _and_ the style and themes still match that of the Deuteronomist, who most likely wrote _Kings_ too. 13. **1 CHRONICLES.** The Chronicler. 14. **2 CHRONICLES.** The Chronicler. > _Chronicles_ —also originally one book—is part of the Writings, written centuries after _Samuel and Kings_ in a later style of Hebrew, and contains different themes than the Deuteronomistic History. Tradition says it was written by Ezra the scribe, but historians just call its author “the Chronicler.” I don’t call him anything for short. Maybe I should give him a nickname right now. How about “Eric”? 15. **EZRA.** Don’t know. 16. **NEHEMIAH.** Nehemiah. > In Hebrew, _Ezra-Nehemiah_ is one book, but the Septuagint split ’em in two because the Nehemiah part was obviously written by Nehemiah as an autobiography or report. Traditionally Ezra wrote his own book, but the author never says so in the scriptures, so we can’t say for certain. 17. **ESTHER.** Don’t know. 18. **JOB.** Don’t know. > Tradition says Mordecai wrote _Esther_ … because traditionalists were sexists and couldn’t fathom the idea that Esther wrote her own book. No, she didn’t write it either. We don’t know who wrote it. > > Tradition also claims Moses wrote _Job_ , but if so, Moses must’ve somehow picked up a _whole_ lot of Aramaic loanwords from 1,000 years in the future. Nope; we don’t know _Job’s_ author either. 19. **PSALMS.** David ben Jesse, Asaph, the sons of Korah, Moses ben Amram, Solomon ben David, and other anonymous authors. 20. **PROVERBS.** Solomon ben David, Agur, Lemuel of Massa’s mother, and other anonymous sages. 21. **ECCLESIASTES.** Qohelet of Jerusalem. 22. **SONG OF SONGS.** Solomon ben David. > Since many psalms start with the author’s name, we know who wrote ’em. Those which don’t, we don’t—although tradition often claims David ben Jesse wrote all the anonymous psalms. > > _Proverbs_ through _Song of Songs_ are often entirely attributed to Solomon ben David. The claim is the other writers of _Proverbs_ were just pen names of Solomon. (So if Lemuel of Massa was in fact Solomon, it’d mean Lemuel’s mother was really Solomon’s mother Bathsheba. _Really_ unlikely.) Of course, this sort of subterfuge would be inappropriate for an author of scripture, so I don’t take that idea seriously. > > _Ecclesiastes_ is also attributed to Solomon, though the text indicates it was written long after Solomon. Qohelet says he was a king of Jerusalem, Ec 1.12 so it’s _one_ of those kings; we just don’t know which one. 23. **ISAIAH.** Isaiah ben Amoz. 24. **JEREMIAH.** Jeremiah ben Hilkiah. 25. **LAMENTATIONS.** Jeremiah ben Hilkiah. 26. **EZEKIEL.** Ezekiel ben Buzi. 27. **DANIEL.** Daniel (in part). 28. **HOSEA.** Hosea ben Beeri. 29. **JOEL.** Joel ben Pethuel. 30. **AMOS.** Amos of Tekoa. 31. **OBADIAH.** Obadiah. 32. **JONAH.** Jonah ben Amittai. 33. **MICAH.** Micah of Moresheth. 34. **NAHUM.** Nahum of Elkosh. 35. **HABAKKUK.** Habakkuk. 36. **ZEPHANIAH.** Zephaniah ben Cushi. 37. **HAGGAI.** Haggai of Jerusalem. 38. **ZECHARIAH.** Zechariah ben Berechiah. 39. **MALACHI.** Malachi of Jerusalem. > With the books of the prophets it’s really easy to know who wrote them: They put their names on them. > > We don’t know whether the narrative parts of _Daniel_ were actually written by the prophet Daniel. The apocalyptic vision parts, yes; the rest we just don’t know. > > There is a tradition that _Malachi_ was written by Ezra. Since מַלְאָכִֽי/_Malakhí_ means “my messenger,” the very same word we find elsewhere in the book— _Malachi_ 3.1 ESV _“Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.”_ > Yep, you could just as easily translate that, “Behold, I send Malachi, and he will prepare the way before me.” But that’s probably a bad interpretation. > > And of course there’s no reason Malachi _couldn’t_ be a proper name. People name their kids anything. #### New Testament. 40. **MATTHEW.** “Matthew.” 41. **MARK.** John Mark. 42. **LUKE.** Luke. 43. **JOHN.** John bar Zebedee. 44. **ACTS.** Luke. > There’s some debate as to whether the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel of _Matthew_ —mainly because that gospel quotes _Mark_ , and why would someone who was there, following Jesus personally, need to quote somebody else who _wasn’t_ there? So maybe it was written by _another_ guy… and okay, maybe that other guy’s name was also Matthew, and people mixed him up with the apostle, and here we are. > > Another theory is the original text of _Matthew_ was written in Syriac, and when it was translated into Greek, somebody added info from _Mark_ to it. > > Maybe; these are all theories. As is a theory John didn’t write _John_ , since the author deliberately avoided referring to the apostle John bar Zebedee by name—the only “John” in his gospel is John the baptist—and maybe it’s another guy, and maybe the author is _also_ another guy. But the traditional explanation is the simplest: John wrote it, and was simply trying to downplay himself. 45. **ROMANS.** Paul of Tarsus. 46. **1 CORINTHIANS.** Paul and Sosthenes. 47. **2 CORINTHIANS.** Paul and Timothy. 48. **GALATIANS.** Paul. 49. **EPHESIANS.** Paul. 50. **PHILIPPIANS.** Paul and Timothy. 51. **COLOSSIANS.** Paul and Timothy. 52. **1 THESSALONIANS.** Paul, Silas, and Timothy. 53. **2 THESSALONIANS.** Paul, Silas, and TImothy. 54. **1 TIMOTHY.** Paul. 55. **2 TIMOTHY.** Paul. 56. **TITUS.** Paul. 57. **PHILEMON.** Paul and Timothy. > The “Pauline Epistles” were written or cowritten by Paul of Tarsus, and are named for the recipients because it’d be really confusing to call them _1 Paul, 2 Paul, 3 Paul,_ and so on up to _13 Paul._ > > That meme I referred to up top, attributed all the Pauline Epistles _only_ to Paul. Even though the letters themselves state Paul had coauthors. Paul alone wrote _Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Titus,_ and the letters to Timothy. The rest were cowritten—and we don’t know how much, but enough for them to get credit—by Timothy, Silas, and Sosthenes. So don’t overlook those guys when you list the bible’s authors. 58. **HEBREWS.** Don’t know. 59. **JAMES.** James bar Joseph, Jesus’s brother. 60. **1 PETER.** Simon Peter. 61. **2 PETER.** Simon Peter. 62. **1 JOHN.** John bar Zebedee. 63. **2 JOHN.** John bar Zebedee. 64. **3 JOHN.** John bar Zebedee. 65. **JUDE.** Jude bar Joseph, Jesus’s brother. 66. **REVELATION.** John bar Zebedee. > The “Catholic Epistles” were written by other apostles than Paul, and yes _Revelation_ is one of them, though it usually comes last because it’s about the End, so it’s an appropriate end to the New Testament. And for the most part they’re named for their authors instead of their audience. > > Plenty of Christians insist Paul wrote _Hebrews_ , though there’s no evidence for that. The editors of the KJV included the note, “Written to the Hebrews from Italy, by Timothy,” although it’s rare you’ll find anyone talk about Timothy as its author. Other speculated authors are the apostles Silas, Barnabas, Luke, Clement, Priscilla, and Onesimus. But the author or authors don’t give their names, so we just don’t know. > > Jesus’s brothers James and Jude wrote the letters which bear their names. That’s not in dispute; what’s in dispute, for some Christians, is whether they’re his literal brothers, since those Christians like to believe Mary remained a virgin and never begat other children, and don’t believe Joseph fathered other children. Those folks will claim James and Jude are Jesus’s _cousins_ —the apostles James the Less and Jude Thaddeus, who followed Jesus and whom he included in the Twelve. But earliest tradition says nope, literal brothers. > > Lastly there are those scholars who aren’t so sure Simon Peter wrote _2 Peter_ , or whether John bar Zebedee wrote his letters or _Revelation_. They’re far from a majority of scholars, and their evidence is shaky, so don’t worry about ’em. _Lastly_ -lastly, I should bring up the apocrypha: We don’t know the provenance of those books _at all_. They first appear in the Septuagint. They might all be pseudepigrapha, meaning _none_ of the people who claim to be their authors actually wrote ’em. So they all get listed as “Don’t know.”

#### Genesis 3.1-8. There’s a bit of wordplay in the first verse of _Genesis_ 3. The last verse of chapter 2 describes Adam and Eve as עֲרוּמִּ֔ים/_arummím_ , the plural of “naked.” The first verse of chapter 3 describes the נָחָשׁ/_nakháš_ , KJV “serpent,” which in this passage I’m gonna translate “devil,” as עָר֔וּם/_arom_. _Really_ similar word. Same letters, but _one_ different vowel sound, which is what makes the difference. Otherwise you’d think the devil was the most naked being in the wild. Why’m I translating _nakháš_ as “devil” instead of “serpent”? Because this is not a literal serpent. This is Satan, as the apostle John later identifies it: _Revelation_ 12.9 KWL And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. The ancients used the word’s verb-form, נָחַשׁ/_nakháš_ —pronounced the same way—to mean “murmur an incantation,” or “practice divination,” or “foretell.” In general it had to do with superstition, and someone which dabbled in superstition would also be a _nakháš_ , used as a noun. Whether the ancients were calling such people serpents, or whether these were originally two different words which later got mixed up, we don’t know. Either way, _Genesis_ 3 isn’t about a literal serpent. Sure _looks_ like it is, considering the LORD’s later curse upon that _nakháš_ that “upon thy belly thou shalt go.” Ge 3.14 But we mustn’t take _that_ curse literally either. I’ll explain when I get there. Some will object to my using _Revelation_ to interpret a _Genesis_ passage. They figure since John wrote 15 centuries later, what does _he_ know about the historical context of this story? Heck, did the author of _Genesis_ even know the historical context of something which happened millennia before he wrote the book? But I figure John wrote down what Jesus showed him, and Jesus knows _exactly_ what this story means. So I’m still going with “devil.” If you’d rather read a translation which sticks to “serpent,” feel free. _Genesis_ 3.1-8 KWL 1The devil was intelligent— more than every wild living _creature_ which the god YHWH made. It said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘Don’t you² eat from any of the garden’s trees’?” 2The woman told the devil, “We eat of the garden’s trees’ fruit. 3Of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘Don’t eat from it; don’t touch it, lest you² die.’ ” 4The devil told the woman, “You² don’t _die_ -die. 5For God knows on the day you² eat from it, your² eyes will open, and you² become like gods, knowing good and bad.” 6The woman saw the tree was good for food, that it was desirable to the eyes, and that it was desirable for wisdom. She took from its fruit and ate. She also gave it to her man with her, and he ate. 7The eyes of the two of them were opened— and they knew they were naked. They sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves loincloths. 8They heard the sound of the god YHWH going through the garden in the wind that day. The human and his woman hid themselves from the face of the god YHWH in the middle of the garden’s trees. As if anyone can hide from God. But Adam and Eve were young and dumb, and knew they’d massively messed things up. #### The original sin. Even though most Christians know this story—it’s one of the first stories we teach our kids, and not just ’cause it’s one of the first stories in the bible—somehow, some way, Christian mythology has got a lot of us believing the first sin in humanity was _sexual_ in nature. I know. There’s nothing sexual in this story. Nobody was having sex! And even if they were, there’s _nothing wrong_ with them having sex. Adam and Eve were specifically created for one another, and were _commanded_ to be fruitful and multiply, Ge 1.28 so if they were going at it like jackrabbits all over the garden, _that’s not sin_. So why do some Christians insist there _was_ some sort of inappropriate sexual undertone in this story? Well, the loincloths. The KJV translated חֲגֹרֹֽת/_khagorót_ , plural of חֲגֹרָה/_khagorá_ , as “aprons”; the NIV went with the way more vague “coverings,” and pretty much every other translation goes with “loincloths.” They covered their genitals. And why would you cover your genitals? Must’ve been doing something with them you shouldn’t, eh? Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more. We have to remember ancient Israeli culture was _extremely_ modest. Women were fully clothed. Men too, though they might wear kilts for work, and God instructed his priests to not have stairs to the altar lest people see up those kilts. Ex 20.26 To their minds, the first humans _had_ to have learned at some point that casual nudity was a no-no, and here’s where they figured it out. Loincloths are woefully inadequate, but it looks like they really didn’t have the time to make something bigger. In any case the fig leaves are where people first got the idea the Tree of Knowing was a fig tree. If you thought it was an apple, that’s because of the Roman Catholics: The Latin word _mālum_ , “apple,” is spelled the same way as the word _malum_ , “evil [thing].” Yep, it’s a pun. But either way, the scriptures never identify which fruit this tree produced. Bananas, for all we know. Humans eat _crazy_ amounts of bananas; ask any grocer. But yeah, anybody insisting the first sin was sexual in nature, is just reading their own personal perversity into it. _They_ might be seriously tempted sexually; nearly all of us are. The sex drive is mighty powerful. But it’s not what we see in the scriptures. The devil told Eve if she ate of the Tree of Knowing, she’d _know_ —she’d know good and bad like God knows it. What the devil left out is she wouldn’t have the maturity to _handle_ this sort of knowledge, and learn it in a way God _doesn’t_ know it, i.e. by _being bad_. God never sinned, but in disobeying God’s only rule about which tree not to eat of, Eve had. And Adam had; he was right there with her, fell for the devil’s temptation same as his woman, and ate what she gave him knowing full well he shouldn’t. Historically Eve gets blamed for this—starting with Adam throwing her under the bus in the next few verses—but let’s be fair; it’s totally the both of them. I’ve mentioned elsewhere the root of human depravity is self-centeredness. Selfishness. We sin because we want stuff—things, wealth, position, authority, power, sex—and don’t care if we shouldn’t have it, and don’t care who we have to push out of the way to get it. Eve wanted knowledge, and didn’t care that God said, “Don’t.” The devil told her God was keeping it from her, possibly because he didn’t want the competition, or wanted to keep them dependent on him. The humans quickly discovered this new knowledge wasn’t quite as advertised. The devil’s a dirty liar, y’know. And that’s the fall of humanity. God created us good and sinless; Adam and Eve ruined that, and all their descendants have been sinful ever since, and Jesus had to come to earth to save us from that. #### Hiding from God. Most bibles translate verse 8 as God “walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (KJV), although I should point out the verb הָלַךְ/_halákh_ can also mean “go, come, depart, move, wander,” and other such verbs of motion. Since God is spirit, I chose not to go with “walking” as the translation. Not that God can’t easily assume a human form if he so chooses; you realize that’s exactly what he did in Christ Jesus. But he didn’t do that _yet_ , and unless he’s anachronistically using his future human body just because he’s unlimited by time like that, I don’t think we should just presume that’s what is going on here. More likely he’s just _moving_ through the garden—and Adam and Eve know it, because they’ve had plenty of God-encounters and know what his presence feels like. But in this particular case, they fled from his presence and hid. Because, duh, _they were gonna die_. God told Adam if he ate of the Tree of Knowing, he’d die. Ge 2.17 And since he hadn’t dropped dead immediately, maybe it wasn’t a consequence but a punishment. Maybe God might have to kill him. In fact plenty of people point out Adam _could_ have lived forever if God hadn’t banished him from Eden, and from the Tree of Life within it. Ge 3.22-23 But I’m of the opinion that resisting temptation, that living a lifestyle where we avoid sinning, extends your lifespan. There’s something inherently life-giving about striving to do what God expects of us. Oh, we’re all gonna die anyway; the sin in our world kills innocent people too. Jesus knows this firsthand. But if sin never _did_ enter our world, if Adam and Eve resisted the devil from the very beginning, for the most part they’d _naturally_ live forever. Barring accidents—for which you need healing, for which you need Trees of Life. Rv 22.2 Likewise there’s something inherently wasting about sin and selfishness. It may not kill you quickly, but it’ll kill you. Anyway, the first humans fled from God because they expected the consequences of their actions to come from God, and here he was. Other commentators like to claim they realized they were unworthy of God’s holiness and feared it might destroy them, for God’s far too holy for evil to withstand him. Although _that_ view has been largely debunked by the fact Jesus ate with sinners, Lk 15.2 and they seemed to withstand him just fine. And when God eventually found the humans and condemned them for their sin, y’notice they _weren’t_ destroyed by his pure holiness; they withstood him too. But they were right: Their consequences _did_ come from God himself. As we’ll see in the next passage.

#### John 11.41-42. I’m going through the Lazarus story, and just before Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, he prays. It’s an odd little prayer, and from it we can learn a bit about both Jesus and prayer. Goes like so. _John_ 11.41-42 KWL 41So they take away the rock {which is _at the place_ the dead lay}, and Jesus lifts up _his_ eyes _to the sky_ and says, _“Father, I give you¹ thanks that you¹ hear me._ 42 _I knew you¹ always hear me,_ _but I say _this_ because of the crowd around,_ _so they might believe you¹ send me.”_ It’s odd because y’notice Jesus _doesn’t make a prayer request_. Usually when a Christian’s about to try to cure someone, or even raise the dead, they ask the Holy Spirit, “Can I do this? Can you make me able to do this? Would you cure this person? Is this your will that they be cured? _Please_ do this.” There’s a whole lot of requesting going on. Some begging. Sometimes even some deal-making. And Jesus does none of that. It’s only, “Thank you, Father, for hearing me. Yeah, I _know_ you already hear me; I’m just saying this for their sake.” Gotta be honest! But in this prayer, he doesn’t ask the Father for anything. It’s solely acknowledgement the Father is here with Jesus—and the Father sent Jesus. And _then_ Jesus raised Lazarus. Why doesn’t Jesus beg the Father to empower him to pull off this miracle? Because he doesn’t need to. We already know from other scriptures Jesus prayed a _lot_. He was all prayed up. When he tells his students elsewhere, right after he threw an evil spirit out of a boy, “This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting,” Mk 9.29 you notice Jesus couldn’t just _start fasting_ right then; he had to already have a _lifestyle_ of fasting. Same with the prayer: Jesus _could_ start praying his head off right at that moment, but what good is that when you don’t already have a conversational relationship with your Father? And Jesus undoubtedly had that already. So when it came time to cure Lazarus of death, Jesus didn’t need to stand before the sepulcher, lift his hands to heaven, pray for three hours, and _maybe_ Lazarus _might_ come forth. Jesus spent his entire life patterning every action after the Father’s will. Today was no different. And Jesus spent his entire life praying, almost constantly, often intensely, to his Father. He’d been all prayed up since childhood. If _we’re_ all prayed up, and we step into a situation where someone needs to be cured of illness, _we_ don’t need to drop to our knees and beg God for hours to grant our request. We’ve already been talking to him. We already know what he wants us to do. We already know whether he’ll empower us to cure this illness or not—and if not, we don’t give the poor person false hope that God’ll cure them immediately. We just remind ’em to keep praying, like the widow in Jesus’s Persistent Widow Story. But if so, we don’t need to pray any more than Jesus did in this situation: “Hey, Father? Thank you so much for hearing me. You always do.” Then, “In Jesus’s name, I order this illness to go away.” And it will. #### So the crowd can see. Ordinarily when we pray, Jesus wants us to do it privately, and not use this opportunity to show off how devout we are. Nor pretend we’re more devout than we truly are. But sometimes we gotta pray in public, and when we do this, we wanna resist the temptation to make a show of it. We want it to be earnest and honest. Jesus always does a great job of demonstrating how to do this in his public prayers, and here’s another good example—where he straight-up admits he’s saying this stuff to the Father for the crowd’s benefit. _Some_ preachers likewise do a good job of this. They’ll use their prayers to teach things about God, sorta like a mini-sermon disguised as prayer. It’s not necessarily appropriate to do this, but preachers do like to take advantage of every opportunity. But an honest preacher is gonna _acknowledge_ this is what they’re doing. “Father, I just want the people to know you’re such a loving, caring, kind, generous, compassionate God…” and admit to God, and to us the listeners, they’re slipping a little teaching into the prayer. Since they have a captive audience, who’s hopefully listening and agreeing in prayer, may as well impart some knowledge, right? In his Lazarus Prayer, Jesus similarly imparts the knowledge his Father hears him. _Always_ hears him. And that his Father sent him; Jesus is there to represent and teach about the Father, same as always. Everything Jesus does—including raise Lazarus, which he’s about to do next—is meant to glorify the Father, demonstrate his love for us, and demonstrate we have access to his power when we trust him. The Father has the power to bring the dead to life, no matter how long they’ve been rotting in a cave. Jesus has this power too. _Christians_ have this power too. And if we’d simply trust God more, and pray _way_ more, we’d see more Christians delaying work to the morticians. Oh they’ll get ’em eventually—but not _just_ yet. But regardless of why we pray, and what kind of requests we’re making, we should _always_ be honest about why it is we pray what we do. Jesus prayed over Lazarus’s sepulcher because the crowds expected him to; Jesus didn’t need to because he was fully conversant with his Father; but Jesus needed to remind everyone his Father sent him. And that’s what he prayed. That’s an honest prayer. Let’s only pray honest prayers.