The Truth About Judging

We've all said it a hundred times.  The most common response when someone rebukes us is "don't judge me!"  This short, yet pointed defense works well in guarding our flaws and excusing our actions when we neglect to live in accord with Paul's evangel.  When we criticize others for "judging" us, we not only shield ourselves from correction; we effectively turn the tables by reminding those correcting us of their own sins.  In three short words, we communicate the essence of a few notable passages.  We act as Jesus instructing our accusers to cast the first stone if they are without sin.  We remind them to remove the plank in their own eye before making us aware of the speck in ours.  We label them hypocrites who dare to point out our shortcomings while they are guilty of so many themselves.

Often times it is right to discourage judgment in light of these passages, but Jesus' command to not judge is often misconstrued.  The most popular passage on judgment is Matthew 7:1-2, in which Jesus warns, "Do not judge, lest you may be judged, for with what judgment you are judging, shall you be judged, and with what measure you are measuring, shall it be measured to you."

Many Christians interpret this passage to mean that we should never rebuke others for any reason since we all sin and are wanting of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).  But if this is true, Jesus and Paul would have a lot of explaining to do.  

Fourteen chapters after Jesus' warning, we read of Him overturning the money tables in the temple and fiercely rebuking the Jews for turning the house of prayer into a "burglars' cave."  Can you imagine what this moment must have actually been like?  Jesus' rebuke was so intense that He bypassed the verbal stage of correction altogether and went straight to physical confrontation.  His divine judgment rang loud and clear to all those who witnessed His dramatic reaction to the unholy corruption they had endorsed.  If Jesus' warning means never making others aware of wrongdoing, His actions in the temple are shocking, to say the least!  

Yet, Jesus' warning was directed to those in Israel.  It would behoove us to look at Paul's letters to see what, if anything, we can learn.  Interestingly enough, when we consult Paul we discover that he followed in Christ's footsteps when rebuking others.  Just as Jesus publicly confronted the Jews in the temple, Paul publicly rebuked Peter at Antioch for hypocritically disassociating himself with the Gentile believers in the presence of the Jews.  In Galatians 2:11, Paul writes, "Now when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, for he was self-censured."

Did Paul make Peter aware of his sin?  He most certainly did, and not in private, but publicly!  Clearly, not passing judgment does not mean never correcting others.

As with any topic, it is crucial to narrowly define terms as we examine judgment in the Bible.  Webster's defines the verb "judge" as "to form an opinion."  Judging, by definition, then, is often rooted in assumption.  We may base our assumptions on evidence, but without concrete fact we can never be sure the opinions we form are accurate.  If we are careful to base our judgments on facts, our judgments will be right and will ultimately help others.

So, judging others is wrong when our judgment is based on assumption rather than fact.  Likewise, it is wrong when we hypocritically pass judgment on others for committing the same sins we commit ourselves.  

Today, we might most easily identify improper judgements as stereotypes.  We might assume that someone is a criminal because he is covered in tattoos.  We may judge someone as ignorant because they don't have a degree or high school diploma.  We may form the opinion that a wealthy man is arrogant because of his career success.  When we form opinions about others based on stereotypes and assumptions, we do exactly what Christ and Paul warned against.  This habit is especially harmful because it creates a self-righteous streak within us in that we feel superior to those we judge.  This form of judging is clearly wrong, but judging rightly is a necessary practice in the life of every believer.  In fact, Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 3:15 that "he who is spiritual is, indeed, examining all."  The purpose of examining all is to uncover truth.  We form opinions about all things by judging them in light of God's standards.

Paul strongly encourages right judgment and correction of fellow believers in several passages.  He instructed Timothy to "herald the word.  Stand by it, opportunely, inopportunely, expose, rebuke, entreat, with all patience and teaching" (2 Tim. 4:2).  In Titus 1:13, Paul writes, "Be exposing them severely, that they may be sound in the faith" and in chapter 2, verse 15, to "entreat and expose with every injunction."  1 Thessalonians 5:14 says, "Now we are entreating you, brethren; admonish the disorderly, comfort the faint-hearted, uphold the infirm, be patient toward all."  Verse 21, then, declares, "Yet be testing all, retaining the ideal." Likewise, Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Is there not among you one wise man who will be able to adjudicate (judge) amidst his brethren" (1 Cor. 6:5)?

To the Jews, Jesus said, "If your brother should be sinning, rebuke him, and if he should ever indeed repent, forgive him" (Lu. 17:3).  Jesus' words in John 7:24 settle the issue in plain terms:  "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."

If we witness the tattooed man I mentioned earlier committing a crime, it is not a wrongful judgment to label him a criminal.  If he commits a crime, he is, by definition, a criminal.  Likewise, if we witness the wealthy man bragging about his success, it is not wrongfully judging him to say he is being arrogant.  Right judgment is based on fact, not assumption.  Jesus was justified in passing judgment in the temple because He personally witnessed the crime.  Paul was right in confronting Peter because he witnessed his hypocrisy first-hand.  Neither assumed anything in their judgment and neither accused their recipients of anything of which they themselves were guilty.  

When we examine judgement in proper biblical context, we discover what it really means to judge as a believer.  Contrary to popular belief, we are to examine and judge all things in light of the truth. Hypocritical judgements and those based on assumption are what Christ and Paul warned against.  Judgement based in fact and done for the purpose of edification, however, is a necessary act in the life of every believer because it encourages fellow believers to be sound in faith.  We must also remember that we may find ourselves on the receiving end of a rebuke at times, and in such cases we need to eagerly heed the loving correction of our brethren.

Be bold but loving as Paul was with Peter.  Be confident as Jesus was in the temple.  Be eager to listen to the correction of others instead of becoming defensive.  But be careful to never be hypocritical or to assume anything when judging others.  

© 2012 by Stephen Hill

Evangelism: The Pauline Model

Being free of all, I enslave myself to all, that I should be gaining the more.  And I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I should be gaining Jews; to those under law as under law (not being myself under law), that I should be gaining those under law; to those without law as without law (not being without God's law, but legally Christ's), that I should be gaining those without law.  I became as weak to the weak, that I should be gaining the weak.  To all have I become all, that I should undoubtedly be saving some."  -The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:19-22

Several years ago, a friend of mine told me of an encounter he had with a Jehovah's Witness.  At the time, my friend believed in an eternal torturous hell, and the Witness (who didn't) challenged his evangelistic efforts.  With one remark, the Witness left my friend literally speechless.  His challenging question was this:  "If you Baptists truly believe in an eternal hell of literal fire, why are we the ones out knocking on people's doors?"

In one short sentence, the Witness left my friend defenseless and without excuse.  My friend's beliefs and lack of effort in spite of them proved his immense hypocrisy and self-righteousness.  Sadly, this trend pervades the majority of Christendom.  A study of professing Christians was done years ago which found that when anonymously polled, over eighty-seven percent of churchgoers admitted to never witnessing to an unbeliever!  

While many of these people may neglect to share their faith because of hypocrisy and self-righteousness, many others neglect to witness out of fear.  They recognize that the "turn or burn" message is completely ineffective and they know how ridiculous they will sound to those they engage.  In the end, they justify their lack of action by reasoning that since God is in control, He will fulfill His plan whether they share their faith or sit at home.

While God is in complete control, He never allows us to use that excuse to justify a lack of action.  Paul's example to the Corinthians is the perfect example of this.  Rather than do nothing in light of God's sovereignty, Paul evangelized with every breath.  As members of Paul's evangel, we are to imitate him and do the same (1 Cor. 11:1, Phil. 3:17), recognizing that as God's elect we are charged with the vital duty of drawing others in the redemptive process.

Ironically, the Jehovah's Witness who challenged my friend doesn't have much to brag about either.  He may be fearless in his approach, but his results are statistically no better.  His fault, though different from my friend's, is no less detrimental.  My friend may have lacked effort, but the Witness lacked the proper approach.  I've been visited by Jehovah's Witnesses many times and have always invited them in for a discussion.  Each time, they have been eager to share their beliefs but completely unwilling to consider mine.  Needless to say, I was never eager to return their dismissiveness with openness.  In the end, neither the Witness nor my friend were effective because neither imitated Paul.

So what is the Pauline model we should follow when evangelizing?  Fortunately, we don't have to go far to find the answer to this question.  In fact, you need not go farther than the top of this article.  Paul spells out his strategy in a few short verses to the Corinthians.  Paul's method is simply this:  becoming all to all to undoubtedly save some.

One of the most striking words in this verse is "undoubtedly."  Paul is completely confident that his method will produce guaranteed results and will never be entirely fruitless.  We know from Scripture and history that Paul is the greatest evangelist the world has ever known, so his tactics speak for themselves.

What does it mean, then, to "become all to all" when sharing the evangel?  Well, fortunately Paul provides some detailed examples so we don't have to do a lot of guess-work.  To the Jew he becomes as a Jew; to the one with law, as one with law; to the one without law, as one without law, etc.  In short, Paul met people at their level.  He showed no superiority and never displayed traits with which his recipients would not identify.

So how can we follow Paul's example in modern America?  How, exactly, can we "become all to all" in these trying times?  

The thought of always meeting people at their level seems to imply an inevitable violation of faith.  You may want to share the evangel with a coworker who is profane and belittles others but can't find a way to possibly relate to him without doing those things yourself.  

In this case (and every one like it), there are plenty of ways to relate to the coworker without violating your conscience.  Simply by starting a conversation, you can quickly uncover a lot about the person's past and the experiences that shaped him.  You will likely be able to relate to many of those experiences from your own life, and the smallest bit of common ground can lay a strong foundation on which to build.  

One of the most frequent complaints among unbelievers regarding Christians is that they are arrogant and judgmental.  By admitting our own flaws and exhibiting a truly caring nature to others, we will earn their respect and, more importantly in terms of the evangel, their attention.  

When you commit to relating to others and meeting them at their level, your evangelistic efforts will quickly flourish.  By following Paul's example and resisting the common Christian habit of appearing superior and judgmental, you will be properly armed with 1) the necessary effort, and 2) the right approach.  Follow Paul's model, and you will be confident approaching unbelievers.

© 2012 by Stephen Hill

Lessons from Esau

Pursue peace with all, and holiness, apart from which no one shall be seeing the Lord; supervising, that no one be wanting of the grace of God...and through this the majority may be defiled, nor any paramour, or profane person, as Esau, who for one feeding, gave up his own birthright. For you are aware that afterwards also, wanting to enjoy the allotment blessing, he is rejected, for he did not find a place of repentance, even seeking it out with tears.   -Hebrews 12:14-17

When we read this passage from Hebrews, Esau's foolishness seems downright absurd.  Who on earth would give up his own birthright for one short meal?  Esau's stupidity is so extreme that even a toddler would laugh at it.  No one in his right mind would give up so much for so little...or so we assume.

Watch the news, visit a friend, or talk with a neighbor, and you will quickly discover that there are more "Esau"s in the world than you may think.  Esau's ignorance was not rooted as much in his love for food as it was in his love for short-term gratification.  He was well aware of what giving up his birthright entailed, but he ignored the consequences in order to satisfy a temporary craving.  The intense appeal of the "here and now" overpowered the array of future blessings his birthright would have afforded in the long-term.

In the Hebrews passage, Esau is termed a "profane person," and this rendering provides an interesting insight.  The Greek here is bebelos and, according to Strong's, means "profane because of improper entrance" or someone "unfit to access God because of approaching Him apart from faith."  Bebelos is derived from baino, meaning "go," and belos, meaning "a threshold to enter a building."  The general meaning, then, is "improper entrance."

Knowing this, we see that Esau's error stemmed from the fact that he approached God apart from faith.  His lack of faith, in turn, caused a lack of wisdom.  

How often do we act just like Esau?  I used to be a financial advisor, and it never ceased to amaze me that the majority of retirees I advised purchased large, brand new homes and started all over with a new thirty-year mortgage right after paying off their previous home.  When they could have (and should have) been living debt free and enjoying their twilight years, they opted instead to burden themselves with a massive and unnecessary debt.  They reasoned that they had "earned" it from all their years of hard work.  Not surprisingly, all of them regretted it within a month after the first mortgage bill arrived.

Like Esau, their foolish decision resulted in a long-term, permanent consequence.  They too wanted to "enjoy the...blessing," but were "rejected...even seeking it out with tears" (v.17).  Even if they sold the new home, they would make nothing on it and certainly not enough to pay in full for another house as they had with the home they paid off over so many years.  Their foolish decision resulted in very real and irreversible consequences.  It was too late to go back and correct their mistake.

Likewise, many of the younger clients I advised refused to save any money for their retirement because they wanted to use the money right away on things that brought them immediate pleasure.  Excluding any unforeseen inheritances or lottery winnings, every one of them will be forced to work far longer than they would prefer when they reach the standard retirement age.  The concept of retirement is not a biblical one, but saving is no less important considering how physically limited we become in older age.  In any case, the naive decision of younger people to focus on the present instead of the future results in undesirable, permanent consequences.

Foolishness like Esau's extends far beyond money, though.  The majority of marriages end, in large part, because people value the short-term qualities of a mate more than the long-term qualities.  They become infatuated with physical appearance and find excuses to justify the many less desirable traits.  Instead of looking for a wife who is faithful, hard-working, and generous as described in Proverbs 31, a man takes only physical beauty into account (which the Proverbs passage reminds us is "fleeting").  As the couple ages and his wife's physical beauty diminishes, the lack of other qualities suddenly becomes more significant.  

We can learn a lot from Esau - especially that faithlessness leads to foolishness while faithfulness leads to wisdom.  Living in the moment and basing our decisions on the temporary gratification of the here and now is a recipe for disaster.  Contrary to Esau, we need to walk by faith in order to obtain wisdom and live with the long-term always in primary focus.  A key ingredient of wisdom is patience, and when we patiently wait as God works in our lives we will avoid the tragic consequences of feeding our immediate desires.

When you encounter those frequent urges to dismiss future blessings in favor of immediate gratification, consider the example of Esau.  Realize that your current craving is like the short meal Esau gave into while the future reward is like the birthright.  If you are searching for a mate, look for a woman or man who possesses maturity and biblical qualities above physical beauty alone.  If you get a tax return, save it instead of blowing it on a new big screen.  If you have paid off your house, enjoy a more debt-free life instead of committing to a new thirty-year loan on an unnecessary mansion.  Walk by faith and act wisely, willing to wait patiently for Father's plan for your life to unfold.

© 2012 by Stephen Hill

Forsaking Tradition

And gathering to Him are the Pharisees and some of the scribes coming from Jerusalem.  And perceiving some of His disciples, that with contaminated (that is, unwashed) hands they eat bread (for the Pharisees and all the Jews, if ever they should not be washing the hands with the fist, are not eating, holding the tradition of the elders; and from the market, except they should be sprinkled, they are not eating; and many other things are there which they accepted to hold, the baptizing of cups and ewers and copper vessels and of couches), the Pharisees also, and the scribes are inquiring of Him, "Wherefore are not your disciples walking according to the tradition of the elders, but with unwashed hands are eating bread?"  Yet He, answering, said to them that "Ideally prophesies Isaiah concerning you hypocrites, as it is written, that This people with their lips is honoring Me, yet their heart is away at a distance from me.  Yet in vain are they revering Me, teaching for teachings the directions of men.  For, leaving the precept of God, you are holding the tradition of men of the baptism of ewers and cups.  And many such like things you are doing."  And He said to them, "Ideally are you repudiating the precept of God, that you should be keeping your tradition."   -Mark 7:1-9 (CLNT)

In this passage, Mark recounts one of many instances in which the Pharisees challenged Jesus for violating the Law and Jesus' less than cordial response to their accusation.  The charge pertains to the ceremonial washing of hands prior to eating, which the disciples neglected to do.  The tradition of hand washing had been passed down through generations of the Jewish people and was so commonplace that the Pharisees (who were the most well versed of all Israel in the Law of Moses) could no longer even recognize this tradition as distinctly separate from the Law.

"Tradition" is defined as an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or social custom).  Traditions are, indeed, some of the most powerful forces of human experience.  Not all traditions are inherently evil, but the vast majority, if left unchecked, produce devastating results.  These traditions are like cockroaches - sneaky, resilient, and prone to damaging everything in their path.

The "cons" list of tradition is nearly endless, but we will take a look at a few of the most significant problems traditions cause and discuss how to combat their negative effects in our lives.  The plague of tradition has been one of the most powerful tools of the adversary since the beginning, and we must arm ourselves with knowledge of how it functions to effectively fight against it.

We all hold to a variety of traditions - some related to family customs, others to certain days or events, and many others especially related to religious practices.  Often, these traditions serve a valuable purpose of reminding us of something meaningful, but more often than not our traditions hold us hostage in a number of ways.

We could spend hours listing traditions, but for our purposes we will examine some of the traditions surrounding only one subject - prayer.  If I asked you to list some prayer traditions, chances are your list would include things like praying before meals and bed, closed eyes and folded hands, kneeling, being sure to say "In Jesus' name" before "Amen," and poem prayers like "Now I lay me down to sleep" and "God is great, God is good..."

At first glance these traditions may seem harmless (and even good), but when we consider them in more detail we discover that they are actually detrimental to spiritual growth.  This is the immense power of tradition.  On the surface it appears beneficial, but in reality it is anything but helpful.

In Mark 7, Jesus contrasts tradition with the "precept of God."  In other words, the Pharisees put the letter of the law above the heart of the law.  In holding to their tradition, they missed the boat completely.  

This is exactly what happens in the case of nearly all religious traditions like those involving prayer.  When we make it a habit of praying before every meal and at bedtime, the initial goal is to make prayer a habit so we won't forget to do it.  What happens in reality is that the prayer becomes so routine that we forget what we're even praying.  We say the same prayer, word for word, before every meal ("God is great, God is good") and before long we don't even realize what we just prayed.  Even if the prayer is varied, the habit of routine leads to complacency and we end up only praying at certain designated times as opposed to praying "without ceasing" as Paul advises.  The tradition of praying at designated times, then, produces two of the major pitfalls of tradition - complacency (laziness) and mindlessness.

Likewise, when we hold to the tradition of always closing our eyes during prayer, we inevitably run into problems.  For some, closing their eyes during prayer is an effective way to block out distractions and get a better mental image of their prayers, but for those who view closing their eyes as a requirement during prayer, their focus produces negative feelings toward prayer altogether.  The feelings of guilt and bondage from having to close their eyes produces feelings of resentment.  For these people, prayer is nothing more than another work that must be followed in order for God to listen to their prayers.  The tradition of closing eyes is a good example of how traditions often cause feelings of guilt and bondage.

Many Christians believe they must include "In Jesus' name" before they conclude their prayers in order for God to even hear them.  While praying to our Father in His Son's (and our Lord's) name is certainly not a bad thing, it is ridiculous to believe that the Almighty Creator of the universe is incapable of hearing our prayers if we omit a three-word phrase.  This prayer tradition is a breeding ground for foolishness among Christians.

Most importantly of all, the many traditions surrounding prayer produce an unhealthy level of pride and arrogance.  When we adhere to ironclad prayer traditions and uphold them as requirements, we inevitably judge all those who don't adhere to the same traditions.  We self-righteously accuse them of not being heard if they don't say "In Jesus' name," and we view them as heathens if they don't pray before meals or close their eyes.  Contrarily, we view ourselves as righteous and don't hesitate to point out the flaws of those who don't hold to the commonly accepted traditions of prayer.  Pride and arrogance were the dominant sins of the Pharisees in Mark 7.  They held a tradition in such high esteem and viewed themselves so righteous for keeping it, that they condemned the disciples for not observing what they had come to view as a practice equal with the rest of God's Law.

Prayer traditions serve as a model for the devastating effects of religious traditions in general.  Whether it's traditions of prayer as in this article, or hand washing as in Mark 7, or nearly any other religious tradition, the results will always be the same.  Among many other problems, adherence to tradition produces (at the very least) complacency, mindlessness, guilt, bondage, foolishness, pride and arrogance.

If after examining your own life you discover that you are plagued by tradition, commit to forsaking those traditions which hinder your spiritual growth.  If your prayer life is routine, stop praying before meals and bedtime and pray instead at various times throughout the day.  If you close your eyes during prayer out of a sense of obligation, pray with your eyes open.  As a general rule, view tradition as the opposite of grace.  Take a long, hard look at the traditions in your life and commit to doing the opposite of those traditions you realize are more damaging than helpful.

© 2012 by Stephen Hill

Contradicting Contradictions

Throughout my life I have met many people who have rejected the evangel due to the many apparent contradictions in the Bible.  For these people, faith in God becomes meaningless when they view God's revelation as inaccurate and unreliable.  After all, if God's revelation is inaccurate in some passages, how can any of it be upheld as inerrant?  When all revelation of God comes from Scripture, our ability to trust in that revelation's accuracy must be unshakeable.  Apparent contradictions must be thoroughly examined in order for us to fully trust and believe the truths of God's Word.

Without a doubt, most of the apparent discrepancies in Scripture are due to nothing more than faulty translation.  Avoiding confusion, then, begins with using a reliable version like the Concordant Literal Version.  But even when using a reliable version, we will inevitably encounter a myriad of potential discrepancies in the text that will force us to dig deeper to uncover the truth.

In this article I will focus on one example of an apparent contradiction in the gospel accounts and will demonstrate through this "digging deeper" method that the Bible is, in fact, a reliable revelation worthy of our trust.  While this one example is not proof of the validity of other passages, it serves as a model for the text as a whole and how to approach the various passages that raise suspicion.

The dilemma I will be examining is the number of men crucified with Christ and the timing of their deaths.  Now, you would be hard-pressed to find a believer who does not believe there were two men crucified with Christ.  Most people would not view this issue as one of vital importance.  After all, it doesn't really hold any major significance to our understanding and faith.  But it becomes very important when the vast majority of our English Bible translations contain a clear contradiction in relation to the issue.  On its own the issue is insignificant, but when it calls into question the Bible's accuracy it suddenly becomes extremely significant.

It's not surprising that nearly all believers assume there were two men crucified with Christ when each of the gospel accounts focuses on two.  Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 mention two "robbers" crucified with Christ.  Luke refers to two men in Luke 23:32 and calls them "malefactors" (criminals).  As robbers are criminals, it is only natural to assume that Luke is referring to the same two men as Matthew and Mark.  Still, Matthew is very specific in labeling the sins of the men he describes.  They are "robbers" and their sin is theft.  Luke, on the other hand, is very non-specific, which is ironic given that Luke is generally considered the most specific of the four gospel authors.  A malefactor can be guilty of any crime.  Nothing in Luke's account proves that the men are guilty of the specific crime of robbery.  But no major discrepancy exists until we read further in Matthew 27 and find out in verse 44 that both robbers "reproached" Christ.  That is, they reviled and hated Him.  Like many in their community at the time, they viewed Jesus as a false prophet who deserved a merciless fate.

If the men Luke refers to are the same men Matthew and Mark describe, it is a bit shocking to read further into Luke 23 that one of them defended Christ against the other while they were being crucified.  Upon hearing one man next to Christ mock Him and challenge His authority, the other man in Luke's account replies, "Yet you are not fearing God, seeing that you are in the same judgment! And we, indeed, justly, for we are getting back the deserts of what we commit, yet this One commits nothing amiss."

It is highly unlikely that a man who reviled Jesus as a guilt-ridden false prophet throughout the crucifixion suddenly rushed to His defense and hailed Him as the true Messiah who had done "nothing amiss" when another challenged Him.  This unlikely circumstance is possible, however, so there's more "deep digging" to be done.

Luke's account tells us that the "malefactors" were "led to be despatched together with" Christ and were crucified with Him at the same time (Lu. 24:32-33).  Matthew's account, however, says the Roman soldiers crucified Jesus, then divided His garments by casting lots, then sat down to keep watch over Him (events which would have obviously taken a good deal of time), and then crucified two robbers on either side of Him.

So, Luke's account depicts two malefactors who were led away with Jesus and crucified at the same time, while Matthew's account depicts two robbers who were crucified after Jesus.  Still, these differences do not necessarily prove a discrepancy.  The time interval Matthew mentions may not be long enough to refute the notion that the men crucified "together" with Christ in Luke are the same men in Matthew.  It is possible that Matthew and Luke may still be referring to the same men.  We still have more "digging" to do.

Thus far, we have looked at the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but now we come to John.  John's account includes fewer details than the others, but also mentions "two" crucified with Jesus in John 19:18.  This verse in most English translations reads nearly identically.  In the popular ESV we read, "There they crucified Him, and with Him two others, ONE on either side, and Jesus between them."

This seems to settle the issue.  According to John's account in the ESV (and most translations), there were two others crucified with Jesus - one on either side.  If this is true, then we are left with believing that Luke and Matthew refer to the same two men but with different titles, that one of them who despised Jesus experienced a sudden and mysterious change of heart, and that when Luke says the malefactors were crucified together with Christ he is choosing to omit the lengthy period of time Matthew notes between Christ's crucifixion and the other two men.  All of this, while highly unlikely, is still within the realm of possibility.

As I stated before, most of the apparent discrepancies in Scripture are due to faulty translation.  John 19:18 is no exception.  In the original text, the Greek word for "one" (italicized above) does not appear.  It has been added by scholars in an obvious attempt to uphold tradition.  Without the negligent addition of the "one," we read: "There they crucified Him, and with Him two others, on either side, and Jesus between them."  The CLNT correctly omits the "one" and reads: "...where they crucify Him, and with Him two others, hence and hence, yet in the midst is Jesus."

Correctly translated, John's account reveals that there were actually two sets of two men - two on one side, and two on the other.  This true, the accounts of Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled and make perfect sense.  The two malefactors in Luke were led away with Jesus and crucified at the same time - one on either side - while the two robbers in Matthew were crucified later, also one on either side.  The two robbers both hated Jesus, while only one of the malefactors did.  As the two malefactors were crucified at the same time and next to Jesus, they were able to converse with each other and with Him.

Rather than describing the same two men in very different ways, we find that Luke described the two criminals who were crucified beside Jesus, while Matthew (and Mark) describe two robbers who were later crucified beside the two malefactors from Luke.  John, then, mentions both sets of men.

The illustration below models the true biblical picture (R=Robber, M=Malefactor, and J=Jesus):


R                              M                              J                              M                              R


The final proof that four, not two, men were crucified with Christ is also found in the nineteenth chapter of John.  John 19:32-33 says the soldiers broke the legs of the first two criminals but did not bother when they came to Jesus seeing He was already dead.  If Jesus was crucified between two men, the soldiers would have passed Jesus on their way from the first criminal to the second on His other side and then backtracked to Jesus. This hardly makes sense. When we realize that there were two men on each side, however (4 total), it makes perfect sense that the soldiers broke the legs of the first two men and came to Jesus in normal order as He was third in the line.

At first glance the four gospel accounts seem to paint different pictures of the crucifixion and at the very least some highly unlikely circumstances, but upon in-depth study it becomes apparent that a long-held belief of Christendom is inaccurate and has been fueled by faulty translation rooted in tradition.  Uncovering truth, such as with this example, often proves to be an exhaustive but worthwhile process.  When we trust in God's Word and commit to uncovering the truth, our faith in the Bible's accuracy will only increase.

Learning that Jesus was actually crucified between four men, while interesting, is not a matter of major importance.  What is important is understanding the process and necessity of digging deeper to find the truth in Scripture to enable yourself to trust fully in God's Word.  Contradict contradictions and help others do the same.

© 2012 by Stephen Hill

What is Love?

Love is, without a doubt, the most powerful element of existence.  Countless people have given their lives in the name of love while countless others have taken their own lives in hopeless pursuit of it.  The effects of love range from the darkest depths to the loftiest heights.  But how many people fully grasp the true nature of love?

How can we begin to define the far-reaching facets of something as complex as love?  For starters, we can consult the Word of the very One who gave us love.

Paul gives us a vivid account of the attributes of love in 1 Corinthians 13.  Here, we read that love is patient, kind, not envious or boastful, arrogant or rude.  It is not selfish, irritable, or resentful, and rejoices with truth while opposing wrongdoing.  It bears, believes, hopes, and endures all things.

In this passage, Paul personifies love.  He gives actionable qualities to an intangible force.  We can more easily grasp Paul's description by substituting the phrase "someone who is loving" for "love" in the passage.  Thus, we read:  "Someone who is loving is patient, kind, not envious or boastful, etc."

If you were to ask the majority of people to define love, they would inevitably define it first and foremost as a feeling.  But Paul's insights from the very Word of our Creator shed a very different light on the matter.  While strong feelings certainly play a role with love, they are not what primarily define it.  As Paul points out, love is proven by action.  One who shows love acts in a way that upholds the nature of love.  To love is to do something - namely, to demonstrate patience, kindness, and a love for the truth, while rejecting jealousy, arrogance, rudeness, selfishness, irritability, resentfulness, and wrongdoing.

We read in Romans 5:8 that God shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.  In other words, Christ's death has special significance because we were not deserving of God's love.  The proof of God's love for us lies in the glorious reality that Christ did something for us when He had no reason to feel anything for us in our wretched, undeserving state.  He endured the most unimaginable pain for the most undeserving recipients.  This is why Jesus told His Jewish brothers to not take credit for the simple task of only loving those who loved them in return (Ma. 5:46; Lu. 6:32).

Jesus and His Father didn't prove their love by feeling something; they proved it by doing something.  And that "something" happened to be the most selfless, kind, and patient act in all history.

The Bible's definition of love is clearly opposite that of the world's.  It's no wonder marriages end more often than not and that countless families are torn apart throughout the world.  When love is viewed primarily as a feeling, the inevitable result is always misery.  Love as a feeling is rooted in selfishness while love as a committed action is rooted in self-less-ness. Is it any wonder marriage vows consist of commitments to love, honor, cherish, and support one another in good times and bad, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer?

What, then, can we learn from the truth about love?  When we understand that love is an action more than a feeling, we realize the importance of taking action to keep our relationships strong regardless of how we may feel.  When we follow Christ's example by doing the things that define love even when our recipient seems undeserving, the rewards will be greater than we could possibly imagine.

Christ's death as the greatest expression of love demonstrates to us that the more undeserving someone is of love, the more remarkable our love is when we grant it.  If your husband wrongs or annoys you, commit to acting in a way that demonstrates your love.  While other wives withhold love-making as a form of punishment, make love to your husband with intense passion.  If your wife harms you, show your love by acting graciously and with forgiveness.  When other husbands may leave the house, buy your wife flowers and praise her qualities you cherish most.  If a coworker offends you, demonstrate your love by responding with selflessness and kindness.  Where others may insult him in defense, buy him lunch and tell him how valuable of an asset you think he is to your team.

In 1 John 4, we read that "God is love."  He is not lov-ing; He is love.  Period.  Love defines Him; it is His very essence.  The qualities Paul lays out in 1 Corinthians 13 define Him.  God not only feels these attributes, He acts upon them in dealing with His entire creation.  Imagine our fate if God were to act upon His feelings toward the unending sins of mankind.

Paul goes on in 1 Corinthians 13 to uphold love as the greatest force, even compared to faith and hope. Why?  Because without love, faith and hope are meaningless.  When we hope, it is for something we long to have.  When we are faithful, it is because we find something worth believing in.  Love is the very thing we hope for and believe in because it is ultimately the only thing worth hoping for and believing in.  It is the culmination of everything holy, perfect, and righteous.  Even the entire Law is "summed up" in the commandments of love (Gal. 5:14).  Without love, there can be no goodness or happiness. Since God is love, lovelessness equals godlessness.

Above all else, remember by the examples of our Lord Jesus Christ and our great apostle, Paul, that, contrary to popular belief, love is best exemplified through action, not reactions to fleeting, deceitful feelings. Commit to living a life of love through action above feeling.

© 2012 by Stephen Hill