The Problem of Matthew 19:28

A Bible-Related Commentary

It is a glaring “error” that should make even the most rabid religious right Christian fundamentalist wince with discomfort. Moreover, it illustrates yet another example of a New Testament writer failing to give full thought to what he is writing. In other words, failing to see things through to their logical conclusion. Due to the uncritical, unquestioning mind-set of Christian fundamentalists, however, this glaring incongruity continually fails to be held up to the rigid scrutiny it so rightly deserves.  

I am referring here to the text of Matthew 19:28.

To set the scene: Jesus has just advised an individual—dubbed “the rich young man” by NT commentators—that if he truly wanted to feel “complete,” or, “perfect” in his bid to enter the kingdom of God on the best possible footing, he would need to sell his worldly possessions and give the proceeds to the poor (Matthew 19:16-22). Then in private discussion with his disciples, Jesus goes and reinforces that sentiment by sounding the now famous line: “it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24).

Hearing this causes consternation among his disciples and prompts the rather oddball question: Who, then, is able to be saved?—as though the Jewish population was comprised of nothing but rich fat-cats! 

Peter then goes on to point out that he and his fellow apostles left everything to follow Jesus and wonders aloud what rewards they are to expect in the future kingdom? Jesus replies that once he—if Jesus and the “Son of Man” are to be regarded as one and the same being—is seated on his throne of Glory next to God, each of the Twelve will also be also seated on thrones: each one judging over one of the twelve tribes of Israel!

Jesus said to them, “I tell you with certainty, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the renewed creation, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, governing the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28; ISV)

Does the reader now detect what constitutes the glaring error alluded to in this article?

That’s right! Judas Iscariot is among those Jesus just said will be ruling over one of the twelve tribes of Israel while seated atop a heavenly throne!

Mark, the earliest written gospel, and used as an exemplar by both Matthew and Luke in composing their gospels, omits this discussion altogether. It would appear, then, that Matthew had a separate source—common to both he and Luke—for this particular discourse. Luke transfers the passage to a much later portion of his gospel and places it an altogether different setting—shortly after declaring that the Twelve have a traitor in their midst (Luke 22:21-23).

Here is the Lukan equivalent of Matthew 19:28:

You are the ones who have always stood by me in my trials. And I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred a kingdom on me. So that you may eat and drink at my table in My kingdom and sit down on thrones to govern the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:28-30; ISV)

In deviating from the text of Matthew 19:28 ever so slightly, Luke is able to avoid having Jesus say that all twelve present apostles will govern over the twelve tribes of Israel. (Still, when you think about it, Luke doesn’t have Jesus officially exclude Judas here either, does he?)

 

The Theist Response 

Remarkably, a vast survey of Matthean commentaries reveals that most commentators simply fail to deal with the issue at all. Whether this is due to a self-imposed silence or simply the lack of awareness of what Jesus’ words actually signify is a question only those NT commentators can answer.

One explanation, however, I have come across suggests that when referring to the “twelve” Jesus had in mind the office of Apostle and not necessarily those apostles in his immediate presence! But is this not really special pleading? Is this truly the natural understanding of what was said? Or is this another example of His Almightiness working in a “mysterious way” we humans are just too stupid to fathom? If so, I’d love to learn precisely which lost tribe Judas Iscariot is going to reign supreme over perched atop that heavenly throne of his.

                           

Epicurus on God: An Unflinching Critique – Part III

A Philosophical/Theological Commentary

The Fundamentalist Viewpoint

In the preceding subsection of this series we pointed out that if “God” truly exists and created every single thing in existence—both seen and unseen—then it necessarily follows that He created evil too. We also pointed out previously that Christians need only turn to Isaiah. 45:7; John 1:3; and Colossians 1:16 in their bible to see who Scripture ascribes the creation of evil to, prima facie.

Yet so many Christians—primarily those of the fundamentalist variety—remain astonishingly untroubled by the existence of evil. To them evil is just a temporary depravity being employed by God for reasons we humans cannot even begin to ascertain. The fundamentalists maintain that this is due to the very nature of God and man’s inherent incapacity to fully comprehend Him. I call this bit of exegesis the “incomprehensibility” argument.

The incomprehensibility argument takes the tack of likening man trying to fathom God to an ant’s ability to fully comprehend we humans—only magnified a thousand or more times over! Try as it might, the ant will find it impossible to see we humans in the same light as we are able to see ourselves. Though the ant will have some awareness of certain facets of our existence—like our physical presence when we trod on its ant mound, to cite one example—it can never fully understand our make up. But it can comprehend that we are real and part of its world.

Man, on the other hand, has so little comprehension of what God is all about, say Christian fundamentalists, that it is futile to even try and attempt to fathom his all-encompassing nature. Unlike the ant who can at least physically sense we humans, God is so beyond our understanding that we don’t have the ability to even detect Him in any truly measurable way–excepting faith. (A stellar reason for maintaining God is, in fact, non-existent; that His Almightiness is simply a product of man’s fertile imagination! But I digress.) So we humans should just be content to love, worship, and adore God, and not be distracted by things we cannot even begin to understand. Just let God remain wondrous and “mysterious,’ so these fundamentalists insist.

The main difficulty with the incomprehensibility argument is that it blithely ignores the evil that the willful and malevolent act of actually creating evil embodies. Put simply, it is an evil endeavor to deliberately create evil. Period! The admonishment by Paul to Christians in Romans 12:9—a directive claimed to have originated with God himself—is that the good Christian is to, “abhor what is evil, [and] cling to what is good”? Good advice. Advice God himself should have heeded at the moment he conceived, then created evil! 

But God is “God”! Therefore, He can do whatever he so pleases, charge the fundamentalists. And if God created evil it is impossible to deem it an evil act for it is impossible for God to “sin”, plead the fundamentalists. 

Who says? Brainwashed believers who cannot recognize theological contradictions when they see one?

Let’s take “Noah’s Flood” as an example. If accepted as an actual historical event, (but one which scientists insist never happened) it would mean that God went and murdered every single infant baby, toddler, and pregnant woman on planet earth. Yes, “murdered”—through the agony of drowning. A truly evil act.

The fundamentalist will argue, however, that it needed to be done and that God had every right to do what he did. Since he created life, He had every right to take it away, goes the argument. Much like Michelangelo sculpting a stunningly beautiful statue yet having every right to destroy it because he is unhappy with how it turned out.

True. But a statue made of clay or marble is not a living, breathing baby or a woman with child. Those Christian fundamentalists who feel God had every right to drown every infant baby in the world fail to appreciate the fact that what God did was still “murder”. Sugar-coat it, camouflage it, any way possible. It still remains cold-blooded murder—however justified Christian fundamentalists may feel the barbarous act was. There are moral aspects to the murder of a world-full of living, breathing, infant babies by a being declared to be love and goodness incarnate that cannot be rightfully ignored. Something is profoundly wrong with this picture!

Same goes for the creation of evil. Evil is the greatest imperfection in existence. So how does a being declared perfect in love and goodness turn around and create the greatest imperfection imaginable, yet continue to be worshiped and adored as love, goodness, and perfection personified? Only by having slavish, uncritical-thinking believers deeply immerse themselves in denial and delusion, then charm others into belief with the very charm of their deluded belief. That’s how! Simply saying something is this or that doesn’t necessarily make it so. You can call a geometric circle a “square” all day long; at the end of the day it still remains a “circle”. A Creator who would concieve of, and then actually go out of His way to create evil, is . . . well, He’s not Perfection itself personified, now is He?

The foregoing, admittedly, is very tough going. I don’t think anyone can be faulted for feeling a tad discomforted, both physically and emotionally, after plowing through it. But in trying to determine the true origin of evil, whether it be objective or subjective, we must insist on being brutally honest with ourselves. We should also strive to work in general harmony and without excessive reproach, we theists and non-theists.

We have to. We share the same planet. The alternative is simply too gruesome to even contemplate.

We must try and lessen the tension and divisions between us and show more open-mindedness and sensitivity towards one another—far more than I’ve exhibited in this series, that’s for sure! That is, if we expect to get at the real truth that underlies evil.

Or could it just be that we humans don’t really want to know the truth about it all, after all?

 

Greywolf’s Dictum: There can be no greater evil in the world than the Creator of evil. (Assuming that there is such a creature.) The conscious, deliberate act of creating evil is, in itself, inherently evil and malevolent Is it not? – A sobering question that is in need of a truly honest answer for those seeking the honest truth.

Greywolf’s Dictum #2: If it happened, God wanted it to. If He didn’t, it would never have happened. End of story. (Assuming that there is such a Creature, of course.) That would include every human tragedy, every evil to befall man. Would it not? – A sobering qestion that is in need of a truly honest answer for those seeking the honest truth.

 

Epicurus on God: An Unflinching Critique – Part II

A Philosophical/Theological Commentary

The Origin of Evil

Epicurus (341-270 BCE)

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?”_Epicurus

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that God actually exists.

Let us, then, go back in time; to the dawn of time; on a hypothetical journey to the time before “time” even began; to that time referred to in Scripture as “In the beginning”. 

At a certain point during our imaginary journey into preexistence we will come across God deep in thought mulling over the idea of creating the very universe in which we humans now reside. A blink of an eye later and we will witness God begin the process of devising and creating the material and immaterial substances that will comprise what theists now maintain is a super-Intelligently designed, perfectly engineered, and lovingly-created cosmos.  

At an intensely critical juncture during this process, and armed with the supernatural foreknowledge of the catastrophic results that the creation of evil will bring about, God, nevertheless, will proceed to use his own free-will to not only conceive, design, and create a perfect form of evil in all its vulgar manifestations, but deliberately do so and then move on to consciously unleash it upon hapless, defenseless, man without mercy.

When Epicurus asked: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? The answer is not only was He unwilling, but evil is a substance He went out of his way to devise and create! That is to say, He actually “invented” evil (along with suffering and death)—and at a time when He had the free-will not to! Again, assuming here that the creature “God” actually exists.

In light of the foregoing we must, once again, ask the theist: Who or what could possibly be more evil than the Creator of “Evil”? And correspondingly: Why on earth would anyone wish to worship and adore such a fiendish creature?! Yet man does - even passionately so! Go figure.

Greywolf’s 1st Dictum: There can be no greater evil in the world than the Creator of evil. The conscious, deliberate act of creating evil is, in itself, inherently evil. End of story

Greywolf’s 2nd Dictum: If it happened, God wanted it to. If He didn’t, it would never have happened. (Assuming that the Creature actually exists, of course.) Note: This would include every human tragedy, every evil to befall man. Would it not? - A sobering conclusion that needs to be honestly addressed by brave, uncompromising individuals in their quest for the truth.

End of Part II

[Part III will deal with the Christian fundamentalist's response to Epicurus, and more. Stay tuned!]

 Part III:  http://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/

Part I: http://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/

 

Epicurus on God: An Unflinching Critique – Part I

A Philosophical/Theological Commentary

They are just eight terse, unassuming lines of text, yet his words stand among the most withering critiques regarding every-man’s conception of “God” that any mortal has conceived of to date.

The Greek philosopher, Epicurus (341-270 BCE), has here whittled two principal attributes said by theists to be possessed of God—omnipotence and moral perfection—down to what amounts to self-negation of that God; a God theists have carefully formulated, nurtured and “sold” to mankind as genuinely real, but which reality, and here Epicurus, combine to render false.

The common conception of God is that “He” is perfect; in fact, perfection personified. More than a few God-believers even hold God to be goodness and love incarnate. So Epicurus’ biting and penetrating question: From whence cometh evil?

Given that evil—the ultimate imperfection—exists, and in a world claimed to be created perfect by a perfect Creator, theists are duty-bound to explain how and from where this greatest imperfection in the universe could have possibly originated. And do so without resorting to banal explanations such as “It’s a mystery” or “God works in mysterious ways”. Theists need to ask themselves: “Who or what could possibly be more evil than the Creator of “Evil?” and then take things to their logical conclusion.

(Students of the bible need only turn to Isaiah 45:7; John 3:1; and Colossians 1:16 to see who Scripture ascribes the creation of evil to. But we are looking beyond the bible here.)

This is not to say theists haven’t tried to account for the origin of evil. Many such efforts have been made. In fact, the accompanying video provides four such exegetical arguments; along with several corresponding counter rebuttals.

Notice: This video has been flagged as being unsuitable for minors. Viewer discretion is thus advised.

Point/Counterpoint

The four arguments employed by theists to account for the existence of evil in the video above are:

1) That God could not have created a world without evil; that ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ are the antithesis of one another; that the eradication of one would mean the eradication of the other.

First, a theist saying God, “could not” anything flies in the face of theist belief that God is omnipotent and thus endowed with the power to do whatever he so pleases. Even create a rock he can’t lift, according to more rabid believers!

But more to the point: If one were to somehow remove every single evil person living on planet earth, would it really follow that every single good person on the planet would somehow ‘disappear’ as well? As the video’s author and narrator* asks: If you made all the murderers not exist, would that correspondingly make all the Boy Scouts that help little old ladies cross the street not exist too?                         *cdk007

The argument is a failed one.

2) That the world with evil is better than without it because of the ‘good’ that arises out of overcoming evil.

The reasoning here is that evil somehow makes mankind “better’ for experiencing the depravity of evil. As the video’s narrator states the theist case: “Without danger, there is no heroism; without hardship, there is no charity; and without suffering, there is no salvation.” Therefore, evil is integral to the existence of good. But as the narrator stresses, this would mean that this world is better than heaven insofar as bible-believing, God-believers are concerned! He pointedly asks: Wouldn’t God, in effect, be punishing us by sending us to heaven if that were truly the case?

This argument too is a failed one.

3) That evil is simply the absence of God.

This follows the same line of reasoning that stresses dark is the absence of light. But darkness, in and of itself, is not inherently a “bad” thing. Evil is. In fact, there is no greater imperfection in all of existence except, as I’ve suggested, the Creator of evil—assuming such a creature were to exist.

A secondary feature of this argument, one brought out in the video, is that this argument precludes God from being omnipresent; that if there is a region of existence that is absent God, then God cannot truly be “everywhere”. Consequently, those employing this argument can no longer justifiably claim God to be omnipresent.

Once more, a failed argument.

At this point it would seem that the term “God” needs a bit of re-defining. And based on what is “real” instead of mere conjecture resting solely on speculation.

4) Man’s “Free-Will”.

This is perhaps the most popular theist explanation accounting for the existence of evil in the world. It conveys a spirit of ‘fair-play’. It has God giving man the freedom to do good, or else, have individuals prove themselves morally deficient by opting to do evil; both options being based entirely on one’s own personal “nature”.

This explanation, however, fails to account for the origin of evil. It argues that man is endowed with the free will to do good and option to do evil. But it points, too, to evil being already preexistent. Moreover, this explanation presents theists with a second thorny question: Would not a being perfect in goodness and love instantly eradicate evil upon recognizing this greatest of imperfections for what it truly is: even if somehow created by mistake or accident?

Greywolf’s Dictum: There can be no greater evil in the world than the Creator of evil. (Assuming that there is such a Creator! Or is the bible wrong?)

Greywolf’s Dictum #2: If it happened, God wanted it to. If He didn’t, it would never have happened. End of story. (Assuming that there is such a Creature, of course.)

End of Part I

[Part II will address the origin of 'Evil'. Stay tuned!]

Part II: http://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/