Was Jesus “betrayed” or “delivered” to be crucified?

Q. In Matthew 26:2, Jesus says, “Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified.” Does the word translated “betrayed” actually mean “betray,” or does it just mean “deliver”? Because to betray someone means a cunning malicious wicked action against someone who is ignorant of what is going on, while Jesus knew that He would be arrested with the help of Judas and He did not mind or resist that. What do you think?

I hear both a linguistic question and a theological question in what you are asking.

To take up the linguistic question first, the word that the King James Version translates as “betrayed” does mean simply “hand over” or “deliver.” It is the same word that Paul uses, for example, when he says about the Lord’s Supper tradition, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” So the idea of malicious deception of an innocent, trusting individual is not implicit in the Greek verb. That would have to be inferred from the context. Because the notion of betrayal is not implicit in the verb, many modern translations do not use the word “betrayed” in the passage you are asking about. The NIV says, for example, “the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” The ESV says “the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”

But if we do translate the word with its basic meaning, is it still appropriate for us to make the further inference that in this context, Jesus is talking about an actual betrayal? That is the theological question. It has two parts, based on two things you assert in your inquiry: (1) Was Jesus ignorant of what was going on? (2) Did Jesus mind that Judas enabled the authorities to find him and arrest him and demand his execution? I believe that the premise behind your inquiry is that if the answer to both of these questions is no, then it would not be accurate to say that Judas betrayed Jesus. We shall have to investigate that premise as well.

(1) Certainly by the time Judas actually led the authorities to Jesus, Jesus knew that he was going to do that. Jesus said as much at the Last Supper. Now personally I do not believe that Jesus recruited Judas to be a disciple with the direct knowledge that Judas was going to betray him. I don’t think it would have been fair to Judas for Jesus to give him the impression that he sincerely wanted him to be his disciple when all along Jesus was just looking for someone to betray him. Rather, I think that Jesus knew generally that one of his disciples would eventually betray him, and that one turned out to be Judas. Jesus described in the Parable of the Sower how some people “receive the word” but are then “scandalized” when the experience of living according to the word turns out not to be what they expected. That was what happened to Judas, and this was not a surprise to Jesus.

(2) However, when that happened, Judas could simply have walked away from Jesus, as others did. Instead, Judas seems to have wanted to “cash in” on Jesus by selling him out to the authorities. If, given the realities of human nature and spiritual conflict, it was inevitable that some of Jesus’ followers would turn away from him, it was still not necessary for any of them to sell him out to his enemies. As Jesus said in another context, “It is necessary that scandals come, but woe to the person through whom they come.” So I don’t think it was all right with Jesus that Judas led the authorities him in exchange for money.

But let us assume, in order to address the premise behind your question, that Jesus ultimately realized it was necessary for someone to tell the authorities where he was in order for him to be arrested and executed, and so, all things considered, he accepted what Judas did. Since Jesus knew it was going to happen, and if he accepted it, would be accurate to call it a betrayal?

I would still say yes. Right up until the last moment, Judas pretended that he was Jesus’ friend. When he led the authorities to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, he didn’t point Jesus out from a distance and say, “That’s the man you want!” Instead, he walked over to him and kissed him on the cheek, which is how, in this culture, one man would greet another man who was his friend. At this, even though Jesus knew that Judas was going to lead the authorities to him, he said (I think with some incredulity), “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” Here Jesus uses the same verb as in Matthew 26:2, but now the NIV (which I quote here) and the ESV, like the KJV, translate it as “betray.” And I think the context justifies that translation. Pretending to be a friend when you are really an enemy is a betrayal, no matter how much idea the person you are betraying has of what you might actually be up to. Indeed, this action of greeting Jesus with a kiss illustrates how Judas went about the entire process of handing Jesus over. He acted all along as if he were deceiving an innocent, trusting individual, because that was what he believed he was doing. And in that sense, from the perspective of Judas’s own moral responsibility, he certainly did betray Jesus.

Why did John the Baptist later question whether Jesus was the Messiah?

Q. Why did John the Baptist later question whether Jesus was the Messiah?

God seems to have revealed very clearly to John the Baptist that Jesus was the Messiah. The apostle John says this in his gospel about John the Baptist:

John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”

However, while John knew that Jesus was the Messiah, he seems not to have understood originally what kind of Messiah Jesus was. John seems to have expected that the Messiah would imminently bring God’s judgment against all who disobeyed God. John challenged some of the people who came to him for baptism, asking, “Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. … The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

However, John was arrested and imprisoned by the ruler of the Jews, King Herod, when he challenged Herod himself. John did not expect that God would allow anything like that to happen at all, not with the Messiah on the earth, and he no doubt expected that even if it did happen, the Messiah would come to his rescue and punish or even destroy Herod for resisting what God was doing. Instead, John languished in prison.

So he sent messengers to ask Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” The implication seems to be, “If you really are the Messiah, get me out of here!” But in response, Jesus told the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

The word “stumble” is a metaphor. Jesus is speaking as if John had tripped and fallen. What he means is that John was scandalized when what he expected to happen didn’t happen. Jesus is offering John both encouragement and challenge. In response to John’s question about whether Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus directs John’s attention to what kind of Messiah he is—not one who is immediately bringing judgment and punishment against God’s enemies, but one who is bringing God’s healing, help, and restoration to those in need, showing the ultimately gracious character of God’s kingdom. Jesus then challenges John to critique his own expectations of what the Messiah would do when he came. He wants John to critique them in light of what he, the Messiah, actually is doing, having come.

I think there is an application for all of us in John’s experience. We may expect that if we follow Jesus faithfully, everything will go well. If things don’t go well, we may be scandalized because what we were expecting to happen didn’t happen. But based on what Jesus told John, if this happens, we should seek to appreciate how God wants to bring a gracious way of life to earth and how our own suffering can play a part in that. Then we will be among those who are blessed because we do not stumble on account of Jesus.

Does the Bible hold women and men to different standards regarding sex and marriage?

Q. Why are women more restricted about sex and marrying multiple men in the Bible? It seems women are 2nd class and held to different standards.

The Bible actually holds men and women to exactly the same standard regarding sex. It teaches that neither men nor women are to have sex outside of marriage. So in that sense, it does not restrict women more than it restricts men.

Regarding marriage itself, I discuss your concern at more length in this post: Is it a sin for a man to be married to more than one woman? The Old Testament speaks into a culture that practiced polygamy (more than one spouse) and specifically polygyny (men having more than one wife). The Bible regulates the practice in order to prevent abuses, for example, a less-favored wife being denied food, clothing, and the opportunity to have children.

However, it does not specifically approve of the practice. Rather, as I say in the post linked above, “At the very beginning of the Bible, God institutes marriage between the first man and the first woman and ordains that ‘the two be united into one.’  As the Bible continues, polygamy enters human history during the inexorable course of its drift away from God after the fall.” So while the Old Testament speaks into a situation of polygamy in order to ensure fairness within it, it is not explicitly giving men, but not women, the right to have more than one spouse.

The New Testament may actually restore the ideal of monogamy. According to one way of understanding the Greek text, it says that a male church leader must be “the husband of one wife,” presumably meaning not married to more than one woman. Another way to understand the Greek is “faithful to his wife,” but that seems to have similar implications.

So I think that the way the Old Testament regulates men having more than one wife while saying nothing about women having more than one husband reflects the characteristics of the culture into which it speaks. God encounters human cultures where they are and works within them to bring them towards his intentions. And personally I think that the Bible indicates that God’s intentions are for a man who is married to have one wife and for a woman who is married to have one husband.

Where can I get an authentic Bible without chapters and verses?

Q. Where can I get an authentic Bible without chapters and verses?

I would recommend Immerse, an edition of the New Living Translation that has no chapter or verse numbers or section headings. It does include book and section introductions. It presents the entire Bible in six volumes. You can order a copy at this link. (Full disclosure: I was a consulting editor for this publication. I receive no royalties or commission or other compensation from sales.)

This is certainly an “authentic” Bible. The New Living Translation is a leading and well-respected English version. Immerse was named Bible of the Year by the 2022 ECPA Christian Book Awards. I hope you enjoy reading it!

(In earlier posts on this blog, I discuss The Books of the Bible, an edition of the New International Version that similarly does not have chapters and verses or section headings. Unfortunately it appears that the publishers have not been keeping this edition in stock. However, it seems that you can still order it, in four volumes, through Christian Book Distributors at this link. I was also a consulting editor for this NIV edition, and similarly I do not receive any compensation from sales. I think you would have a good experience with this Bible as well!)

Were Abraham and Ephron negotiating the price of the burial cave?

Q. I have always believed that Abraham and Ephron played out a typical bargaining/price haggling over Sarah’s burial cave—something that happened all the time in the ancient world:
“Please, take it for free.”
“Oh, I couldn’t possibly.”
It seems that they did a little dance until they agreed on a price. I haven’t found anything written to corroborate or refute my idea. Do you have a thought?

I agree with your understanding of this passage. It actually gives us a fascinating window into the practices of the ancient world.

Abraham starts by humbly and diplomatically describing himself to the Hittites as “a foreigner and stranger among you” who needs to buy a burial cave. The Hittites call him in response, just as diplomatically, “a mighty prince among us,” and they tell him that he can ask any of them to sell him a cave.

Abraham then asks the community to speak with Ephron on his behalf (the rules of the game seem to dictate that he cannot speak to Ephron directly at this point), and Ephron, who is listening, says he will give Abraham the cave.

Abraham knows that this is actually further diplomatic language, and he responds by asking Ephron please to accept the price of the cave from him. That is Ephron’s signal, apparently, to name a price, but to do so without specifically asking for it: “The land is worth four hundred shekels of silver, but what is that between you and me?” This seems to be a fair price, since there is no further negotiation; Abraham weighs out the shekels with the other Hittites watching to certify the transaction.

Sometimes people from other cultures can appreciate this kind of ancient diplomacy more naturally than people can who have been raised in contemporary American culture. I was once leading a Bible study on Judges and we were discussing the passage in which a man named Othniel captures a city and wins Aksah, the daughter of the clan leader Caleb, as his bride. However, the couple then found that their land lacked water, and it was Aksah who approached Caleb to ask for some further land that had springs on it. Someone in the study asked why Othniel hadn’t done this himself, and another person in the study, who was from another culture, answered, “He didn’t have the standing to approach Caleb.” Contemporary American culture might see Othniel as a hero who had achieved status through his exploits, but apparently in his culture he was still the son-in-law who needed to show due deference to the clan leader. But the leader’s daughter could approach him.

Was Herod the Great considered to be a Jew?

Q. Was Herod the Great considered to be a Jew?

Herod was a Jew by religion and partly by descent. His father was Idumaean and his mother was Nabataean, both groups considered to be Arab, but his paternal grandmother was ethnically Jewish. Herod’s ancestors had converted to Judaism and were observant Jews, and Herod was raised as a Jew.

How long did it take the wise men to reach baby Jesus?

Q. How long did it take the three wise men to finally reach baby Jesus? And I see you say they probably only stayed in the stable for a week, so where was baby Jesus when the three wise man found him?

The wise men themselves told King Herod that the saw the star that announced the birth of Jesus two years before they arrived in Jerusalem. However, we don’t know how long it took them to decide to travel to worship the newborn king and how long it took them to prepare for the journey before they left. Given the transportation standards of the time, they could have made the trip in a matter of weeks or at most months. (They would have had either to walk or to ride on horses or camels.)

In the other part of your question, you are referring to this post: How long did the baby Jesus stay in the manger in the stable? In that post, I indeed say that he and his family probably stayed no more than a week. After that, they probably returned to Nazareth. Matthew tells us in the account of the wise men not that they went to Bethlehem after the priests and teachers of the law quoted Micah to say that the Messiah would be born there, but that they followed the star to “the place where the child was.” Then, Matthew says, “They entered the house and saw the child with Mary his mother.” So when the wise men found Jesus, he was in the house where his family was living, most likely in Nazareth.

By the way, while we traditionally speak of “the three wise men,” Matthew does not tell us how many of them there actually were. Since they gave three gifts—gold, frankincense, and myrrh—readers over the centuries have inferred that there were three of them. But we don’t know for sure.

When did Jesus become filled with the Holy Spirit?

Q. When did Jesus become filled with the Holy Spirit?

The Bible does not tell us specifically when Jesus became filled with the Holy Spirit. However, my answer to your question would be that he was likely filled with the Spirit from the moment of his conception.

I say this for two reasons. First, the angel Gabriel told Zechariah that his son, who grew up to be John the Baptist, would be “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb.” John himself said that Jesus was greater than he was, and I cannot imagine that Jesus would not have had at least the same kind of filling with the Spirit that John did.

The second reason why I think that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit from the time of his conception is the prophecy that Isaiah gave about the coming Messiah. Isaiah said:

For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
    and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace
    there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
    to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
    from this time forth and forevermore.

Isaiah went on to say:

There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
    and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
    the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
    the Spirit of counsel and might,
    the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.

This suggests to me that this filling with the Spirit was to be true of the promised child from the time that he was born, and so arguably from the time of his conception. And Christians understand Jesus to have fulfilled this prophecy of the coming Messiah.

It is true that the gospels say that when Jesus was baptized, “he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him.” But this was not necessarily the moment at which Jesus was first filled with the Spirit. Rather, I think it was visible testimony from God that Jesus was indeed the one about whom Isaiah prophesied that “the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him.” This is what confirmed for John the Baptist, for example, that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. John told the crowds, “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

Why didn’t Isaac confront Jacob about stealing Esau’s blessing?

Q. Why didn’t Isaac confront Jacob about stealing the blessing meant for his brother Esau?

Your question is about the account in the book of Genesis of how Isaac’s younger son Jacob tricked his father into giving him, rather than his brother Esau, the blessing that Esau should have received as the older brother. Readers in many contemporary cultures will have questions about this account because in it, the authority figure (Isaac, the father) does not act in the way we would hope and expect authority figures to act.

For one thing, as you suggest, from the perspective of many contemporary cultures, Isaac should have confronted his son about his deception and theft and corrected him. Beyond that, many contemporary readers will wonder in the first place why, when Isaac realized what had happened (“Your brother came deceitfully and took your blessing.,” he told Esau), he did not retract the blessing that Jacob had obtained fraudulently. Was it really the norm in this culture for people to be bound by their word, even if they had been led to give it under false circumstances?

Apparently so. There is a comparable account in the book of Judges of how the Gibeonites, a tribe living in the land of Canaan, deceived the Israelites into swearing an oath of peace with them by pretending to be a group that lived far from Canaan. The Israelites were supposed to destroy all of the Canaanite tribes, but when they finally learned who the Gibeonites really were, they said, “We have given them our oath by the Lord, the God of Israel, and we cannot touch them now.”

As I said, this may seem strange to many contemporary readers. We do not consider people to be bound by their word if they have made a statement under compromised circumstances. In the United States, for example, a confession can be dismissed as evidence if it can be shown that it was made under duress. What readers of the Bible may wonder most is how God could consider people to be bound by their word under such circumstances. Isn’t God fair? Why would God hold people to statements they would not have made if they had not been deceived?

I think the answer, as we see often in the Bible, is that God chooses to work within the conventions of human cultures to pursue his redemptive purposes. The Bible clearly disallows many cultural practices that are destructive of human flourishing. But in general, as I have said in other posts on this blog, God works out his plan through the free choices, good and bad, of human moral agents, accommodating human cultures in the process. Rather than completely setting aside the cultures humans have built, which are often for the most part positive creative achievements, God looks at a situation and says, “I can work with that.”

But this brings up an important interpretive principle: As one of my seminary professors used to say, “Narrative is not necessarily normative.” Just because Isaac, based on his own cultural norms, considered himself bound by a blessing he had given under false circumstances, that does not mean that we today should enforce the same norm. Rather, I think that based on the counsel of the Bible overall, we should only hold people to their word if it was given fully informed and with free consent.

So to answer your question, I would say that Isaac did not confront Jacob about stealing Esau’s blessing because Isaac considered it a “done deal” according to his cultural norms and there was nothing he could do about it. But we do not need to take that as a model for ourselves today. I think we should instead encourage people who have been led to give their word under false circumstances to take back what they have said and not consider themselves bound by it. And yes, they should confront the person who deceived them and impose any consequences that would be appropriate as a penalty and correction.

I pray, but I have not been baptized; am I a Christian?

Q. I have never been baptized, but I pray a couple of times a day, asking God to forgive me for my mistakes in life and to watch over my family and friends. I feel as if I am a Christian, but I’m not sure.

Regarding the issue of baptism in particular, please see this post, which I think will help answer part of your question:

Am I still considered a Christian if I haven’t been baptized?

More generally, I would say that I am glad that you have a relationship with God through prayer, but I would like you to have the assurance that you do belong to God through Jesus because of what Jesus did for you when he died on the cross as your Savior. The Bible teaches that we can have confidence about this through faith in God’s promises and through the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

But this confidence is not something we are expected to acquire on our own. Being a Christian is not a matter of pursuing certain devotional practices in isolation; it is a matter of becoming part of a community of people who love and serve God together. So I would encourage you to seek out such a community near you, a church that honors and worships Jesus, and find your place in it so that you can grow in your knowledge of God and in your confidence that you are indeed a Christian through faith in Jesus.

I trust that in this way, God will indeed bring you to the place where you are sure that you do belong to him.