"The Most Embarrassing Verse in the Bible"

I recently came across the following quote by C.S. Lewis:

"Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.

C.S. Lewis, The World's Last Night: And Other Essays, p.97

C.S. Lewis is embarrassed of Jesus?  I was sure the quote was taken out of context, so I looked it up... No such luck.  Lewis goes on to explain how he solves the problem: With the assertion that Jesus probably really did not know how or when the "world would end". He continues:

"Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side... The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he could really be. For a God who can be ignorant is less baffling than a God who falsely professes ignorance."

Now, I'm not going to pretend that the mysteries of the Incarnation are fully comprehensible, but it really bothers me that a theologian as respectable as Lewis would suggest that Jesus was wrong about his own return.  What Lewis is suggesting is that Jesus really did not know when he would return, but he still saw fit to make several predictions regarding his return. Isn't that called a lie?

Jesus' "confession of ignorance" (if it really was one) surely didn't sink in with his followers.  Even Lewis notices that the expectation of Jesus' imminent return was widespread in the early Church.  The claim that Jesus taught his own ignorance of the end-times seems unlikely. It seems more likely to me that Jesus made predictions about his return because he actually knew what he was talking about, and that the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD constituted the fulfillment of Jesus' prophesy.

It seems appropriate to me to be embarrassed about what C.S. Lewis said, not about what Jesus said.

Paul: A False Prophet? My Response to Mark...

This is my response to a continuing conversation I'm having with my friend Mark, who believes that the apostle Paul is a false prophet.  Here is my original post, and this is his response, which this this a reply to.

Mark,

I think you know that I totally agree with you that taking Paul’s words and then interpreting Jesus’ words in light of what we think Paul is saying – that is just wrong. That’s why we are in this conversation in the first place, right?

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that Gamaliel (in Acts 5) is saying that if the apostles are set free, then the truthfulness of their teachings will be judged by the people: If the people follow them, what they are preaching is true, and if they are false teachers, the people will not follow them (and perhaps kill them).

But I ask: Is this what Gamaliel actually says? Look at Acts 5:38b-39:

“[I]f their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

Gamaliel is stating that the success or failure of the apostles’ message is in the hands of God, not the hands of men. God is involved in the fight, and if the message of the apostles succeeds, we are right to say that it is “from God”.

This leads to the question: Did the apostles succeed, or fail? I think the fact that the Bible you hold in your hands contains Paul’s epistles is a strong indication of the only viable answer: Yes, the apostles (including Paul) succeeded in their mission, the message was delivered, and now we can say that indeed, that message is from God. God fought the battle and He won. And now He continues to fight it in your heart and mind.
What would we expect if Paul really is a false teacher? Gamaliel gives us two examples of false teachers:

“Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.” Acts 5:36-37

Sure, Paul may have died as a result of what he preached. But this was after a long, successful teaching career that resulted in thousands of followers, and ultimately formed today’s Church.

Yes, there are problems in the Church today. My statement about the “character of the Church” being evidence of the truthfulness of the message was overstated. But Gamaliels statement was about the “purpose or activity” of the apostles, and that purpose and activity was the spread of the Gospel, the proclamation that Jesus is Messiah and Lord of all. They spread that message in person and in letters, and those letters survive to this day in our Bible.

Sure, the message that Jesus is Messiah was not accepted by a huge number of Jews. But if that is your main objection, then I think you make a mistake in overlooking the huge number of human beings that do believe Jesus was the Messiah.

You also mention the “fruit” of Matthew 17:15-20 being the person’s character, not how well their message spreads. I totally agree, and my point was not in line with the true meaning of the text. But there is no reason to suggest that Paul’s character was anything but exemplary. And it still stands that based on Gamaliels statement (discussed above) and the fact that the message of the apostles did not die out, their message was truly from God.

Now I’ll move on to something else you mentioned in your reply. You say that Paul’s teachings go against Torah. This makes me wonder: What do you believe about Jesus? What did he accomplish? How does he factor in? What affect does he have on Torah?

It seems to me that your views on Jesus will determine whether Paul’s teachings are acceptable. But if Torah is completely unaffected by the life and status of Jesus (if you even accept that) then of course Paul if a false teacher. But I think I need to understand how you view Jesus to further understand your beliefs about Paul.

Paul: A False Prophet? Mark Responds...

In a previous post, I discussed how my friend Mark doesn't accept the writings of Paul as inspired, and considers him (Paul) a false prophet. Mark responded to me in an email that he has agreed to let me post here. Mark makes some interesting points, several of which I'll respond to in a seperate post.

Do I think that Paul is a false prophet? Yes, I do, however because of how we interpret his writings I come to this conclusion. If we can find a way to interpret his writings in a way that he is consistent and not contradictory to things in the Torah, and in Jesus' teaching, then I would have no problem with Paul. When I was talking with our pastor about this a few weeks ago, I told him that I believe that unless we can properly understand Paul, his writings are dangerous. Unfortunately Paul is not alive today to be able to explain what he meant in his letters, nor do we have all the information to understand who, what, when, where, and why he is writing what he does. If Paul meant to say, what most Protestants interpret him to mean, then under the Torah he would be sentenced to death, however there are things in the Torah that can only be done in an Israelite state that governs itself by the Torah, and that has not existed for thousands of years, and could be argued that it never existed, a country completely following God that is. So if Paul was alive today, and in agreement with Protestant interpretation, I would not call for his death, but that people should not follow him.

This is actually what Gamaliel had intended in his response, and is consistent with what we know of Gamaliel. His response is that if these men are preaching something they made up, people will figure it out and abandon them. However if it is from God, then you can not oppose God and what he wants to do, and Gamaliel could believe this is a test; "The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 13:3) Though there are legends that Gamaliel became a Christian, they are only legends, and Gamaliel is not in any way endorsing the apostles as being from God. This is also how Gamaliel would see Roman occupation of Israel, the rise of Christianity, of Islam, the LDS Church, and many other religions that test Israel's faithfulness to God.

God's intervening to fight for ideas that are true, and suppressing those that are not, does not reflect what Gamaliel believes, or how I think that God actually acts. Throughout the Bible there are multiple things that people could say "why didn't God just keep that from happening?" Why did he allow his people; to follow other gods, lose the Law, war against each other, become so evil in his eyes that he has them exiled. God even though he is completely sovereign over everything, he allows people great freedom to obey or to disobey him. They are even allowed to write new things and gain millions of followers, Islam and LDS are great examples of that.

I too am trying to figure out how Paul works, if he does, within Christianity. I just have not found a good way to do it. Even if I could, I am not sure I would be able to convince people to view Paul in a different manner. Currently, I don't know how to reconcile Paul. God, I believe is consistent in how he deals with people especially his people. Salvaging consistency, salvages my belief in God much in the same way your belief that God would protect the Bible salvages your belief in God.

When it comes to the "fruit" of Paul being judged by the size and character of the Church today it could be silly to say that Paul was not a false prophet. The history of the Church and it's present condition is in a miry, Joseph Smith has better fruit by that standing. But the "fruit" that Jesus speaks of, is a persons character, life and relationship to him, not of how well their message spreads. Like he says in Matthew 7:21-27:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

I don't know if is Paul wrong, but our understanding, and following him over Jesus is wrong at the very least. Is he in line with Jesus or do we make Jesus line up with Paul in order to maintain a book that people put together? People that God allows to do evil things, and to disobey him.

Does God allowing people to choose to disobey him, make him unconcerned, uninvolved, or too weak that it is not worth pursuing a relationship with him? I think this is like the prodigal son, it is not the father that doesn't want the relationship, it was the son. The father wasn't unconcerned about his son, he saw him coming a long way off. He was not uninvolved, he gave his son everything he asked for, and made a feast when he came back. He was not too weak to go find his son and bring him back, but the son was the one that needed to come back, and see why he needed to come back. We both are prodigals, that need to get home. I for one am the one that is unconcerned, uninvolved, and too weak most of the time to find my way home. For me to find that way I need to start in the Torah and make my way from there.

-Mark