In John 2:19–21, Jesus says: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jewish leaders understood Him to mean the literal temple in Jerusalem, but the passage notes that He was speaking of “the temple of His body.” How is this understood in Christian theology? Was Jesus explicitly referring to His physical body as the “temple,” and if so, what is the significance of this metaphor?

In the following verse, did Jesus in fact say the word, the name of God, that no Jew would dare to say aloud at that time? > As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, > and fell to the ground (John 18:6) If yes, why was He not tried for that before the high priest (there were so many witnesses after all)? If not, why then so many say that here He was quoting Exodus 3:14 (which means He DID pronounce the forbidden word)?

If Psalm 110 was NOT written by David, then did Jesus make an error in stating that "David himself calls him [the messiah] 'lord'" in the Psalm (Mark 12:36-37; Mat. 22:43-45; Luke 20:42-44), or is there a better way of looking at this? I've read a few commentaries (expositional and scholarly) on the New Testament passages and Psalm in question (Expositor's Bible Commentary: Carson (Matthew), Wessel and Strauss (Mark), Liefeld and Pao (Luke), VanGemeren (Psalms); Word Biblical Commentary: Evans (Mark), Hagner (Matthew), Nolland (Luke), Allen (Psalms 101-150); and the NET Bible's notes to name a few). At least one of the Expositor's commentators recommended Allen's commentary. I agree that his appears to provide the most thorough analysis of the Psalm's original context of the commentaries I've read and also best addresses the question at hand. While he concludes that the Psalm was most likely written *about* David rather than *by* David (as also the NET concludes), he also writes, > "An understanding of the heading of the psalm in terms of Davidic authorship features twice in argumentation, at Mark 12:35–37 (and parallels) and Acts 2:33. This understanding, already as old in principle as the redactional characterization of the block of Davidic psalms in Pss 3–71 as “the prayers of David son of Jesse” in Ps 72:20, accords with what R. N. Longenecker has called the “circumstantial” or “descriptive” type of interpretation, based on ancient cultural norms, to be found in the NT, as distinct from the normative kind of exegesis practiced today (TynBul 21 36–38; Biblical Exegesis, 193–98)." I've since read some of the recommended book by Longenecker, *Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period*, learning much about Jewish exegetical practices around the 1st century. I also read Dr. Michael Brown's take on Jesus' use of Psalm 110 in his book, *Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol.* 3. While he prefers defending the Psalm originally being written about the Messiah, he also concedes, > "Even if the psalm was originally written by a court poet for his lord, King David, it would still point to David’s priestly calling (as a prototype of the Messiah) as well as to his worldwide reign, fulfilled only through David’s greater descendant, King Messiah. This would mean, then, that Jesus was pointing to Jewish interpretation of the day, interpretation that attributed the authorship of this psalm to David, thereby proving that Messiah had to be greater than David, but without making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm." This is the best and most direct answer I've found so far. The difficulty now is reconciling the assumption that Jesus was not "making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm" with the language that he uses, which appears to be definitive. Matthew's version seems to be most easily reconciled with this approach, since Davidic authorship is merely an assumed part of Jesus' questions to his opponents. Mark and Luke are more difficult, Mark's version reading, "David himself said by the Holy Spirit,... David himself calls him 'Lord'." (I also explored the possibility that *David* could merely be a colloquial designation for the Davidic Psalms, attempting to replace *David* with *the Davidic author* in Jesus' quote. This, however, doesn't seem to work well, since the argument in the gospels revolves around the question of how the messiah could be *David's son*, whenever *David*, the assumed author of the Psalm, calls him 'Lord'.) I also have some deeper questions, which I think are pertinent to how we answer the main question: - Does Jesus himself believe that David wrote the psalm? (It's easier to account for other New Testament writers' use of Jewish tradition, since they aren't themselves *divine*.) If so, how should that inform our Christology? (Which part of His argument is divine and which part is human?) - Is the point Jesus tries to make undermined if his argument is based on a false premise? - If Jesus said that David wrote this Psalm, but it actually wasn't written *by* David, how do we reconcile that with the doctrine of inerrancy?

While I understand there are many potential passages in the Bible of Jesus claiming to be a messiah (which I understand to mean "anointed"), a king, or one through whom it is necessary to know God, I'm interested to know if there are any places where He *literally* claims to be God, God-like, or related to God (i.e. the son of God). Taking the Bible to be a reliable record of what He said (for the sake of this question), what Biblical passages illustrate Jesus literally saying He was God? OP Edit: I see that my question has been edited to say "literally" which has caused a bit of turmoil, so I'll just say that for me "literally" is read to mean "literally stated, or inferred without interpretation". So "I intend to put on foot coverings" does not literally mean shoes, as it could mean socks, but "I intend to drive to the capital city of the country England" means you'll end up in London no matter which way you swing it. Interestingly I did try to ask the Biblical Hermenutics group this question and it was suggested I ask here.

There is a related question here: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56196/… We are told in various imagery that Messiah would come in the line of David and be a branch or rod that sprouts from Jesse's roots: > And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 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 of the fear of the Lord; - Isaiah 11:1-2 > Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. - Zechariah 3:8 > And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: - Zechariah 6:12 Later, in Revelation, we are told that Jesus is the root of David: > And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. - Revelation 5:5 And then Jesus himself claims to be both the root and the offspring of David: > I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. - Revelation 22:16 This is much like when Jesus asked about whose son the Christ is "“How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matthew 22:43-45). For those who believe Jesus did not pre-exist his incarnation, How can Jesus be the root of David if he is David's offspring?

There appears to be a predicament among the various reputable interpretations I can find for Matt 6:31-33: > 31Do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’. > 32For the Gentiles strive after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. > 33But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you. Here are the interpretations I can find, taking into account lived experience, and why I find each actually _increases_ worry: * Prosperity: God clearly promises here to give you all you need *if* you're seeking him first enough, and if you have enough faith. If you're not receiving all you need, it's because you do not have sufficient faith/seeking-gods-kingdom-first-works. The worry is that you cannot rely on this promise because by experience we all live with oscillating levels of faith/works, thus neutralising this promise. * [GotQuestions interpretation](https://www.gotquestions.org/seek-first-kingdom-God.html) : "Perhaps God knows that what truly we need is a time of poverty" - this lines up with the lived experience that many Christians are indeed poor. However this also provides plenty of room for worry for a family provider, that God may soverignly decide to impoverish your family. * The interpretation that God only supplies food/drink/clothes as per this verse, and that is where his provision stops. How can this be of any comfort for someone who needs to provide their children a house, bed to sleep in, education, etc? * The interpretation that this verse is in context of Jesus talking to the 12, thus was a promise for them, not us. In light of these options, what maximally worry-dispelling biblical advice/counsel/interpretations for this verse can be reasonably justified?

Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a colt! The Passover was preparation day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. A 2nd Sabbath day was then on the 7th day, Saturday! If Jesus fulfilled the Passover and the Unleavened Bread by being crucified on the 14th and in the tomb on the 15th, another preparation day would be the 16th, the Sabbath the 17th and the Resurrection would be on the 18th. Therefore, the Triumphal Entry would have been on the preceding Sabbath: the 10th!

How can the following verses be reconciled? Matthew 5:18-20: >“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 23:1-3: >”Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” Matthew 12:1-4: >”At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat?”

Do you know for sure you are going to Heaven. https://marymargretsamerica.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-christ-child_69.html

For reference, here's Luke 13:28, ESV: > In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. All remaining references to the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth leads to the idea that "that place" is hell. References are as follows: >Matthew 8:12 > >But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” >Matthew 13:42 > >They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 13:50 > >and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 22:13 > >“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ >Matthew 24:51 > >He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. >Matthew 25:30 > >And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

I have come across this phrase "***A born-again Christian has a new nature that cannot sin***" (or other versions written differently but carrying the same implication). Here is one example from this site and here is another more fulsome treatment from an evangelical perspective. Does this mean a born-again Christian can not sin? If we can still sin, then what is the purpose of that nature if it can not shield us from sin? ***How would/does a nature like this make us different from Abraham, Noah, Job, David or Moses?***

When I read John 5:24-29 (CSB) > 24 "Truly I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life. > > 25 "Truly I tell you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself. And he has granted him the right to pass judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good things, to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked things, to the resurrection of condemnation. it seems clear that Jesus will evangelize the dead who hasn't heard the gospel, and that there *is* an element of consideration of how one conducts one's life before death. Restrictivism can be defined as: "God does not provide salvation to those who fail to hear of Jesus and come to faith in him before they die." How would those who believe Restrictivism (see sample adherents in the chart below) interpret that verse? (*Source of the chart*: [What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0830816062))

In Matthew when Jesus and Satan interacted, in one of the temptations given by Satan we get the sense that he has authority over all nations : > Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭4‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭ESV‬ However, it is mentioned in the Old Testament that wars and conflicts do exist between nations, such as Babylon coming to destroy Egypt. > Thus says the Lord God: “I will put an end to the wealth of Egypt, by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his people with him, the most ruthless of nations, shall be brought in to destroy the land, and they shall draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain.” ‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭30‬:‭10‬-‭11‬ ‭ESV‬‬ But later in Matthew, Jesus uses the argument that Satan's kingdom can’t be divided. > “Knowing their thoughts,” he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭12‬:‭25‬-‭26‬ ‭ESV‬‬ My question is: given that Satan has/had authority over the nations in the past as well as these satanic nations then conquering one another as shown in Ezekiel, how does Jesus’s argument hold up that Satan's kingdom can’t be divided? Is he speaking only spiritually or something else?

Dual wills of Jesus, as human and as God, are on full display in the Synoptic gospels' account of Jesus's suffering and temptation at Gethsemane. Let's first review how each gospel recounts the story: - **Matthew 26:38-39**: > Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. (KJV) > Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (ESV) - **Mark 14:34-36**: > And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. (KJV) > And he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death. Remain here and watch.” And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (ESV) - **Luke 22:42-45**: > Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow, (KJV) > saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow, (ESV) Reading between the lines, it's obvious there is temptation, sorrow, fear, and surrender within the human soul of Jesus and we (who are called to take up our cross) can relate. Luke also added that an angel appeared to strengthen Jesus and how the disciples were *also* sorrowful. Next, let's review several obvious doctrinal implications applicable to this episode to limit allowed interpretations: - **As God** Jesus never ceases to want to save us by being the Passover Lamb to "take away the sins of the world" (John 1:29). - Chalcedonian definition allows us to reconcile this apparent ambivalence of wills at Gethsemane by interpreting the above passages that **as Man** Jesus is struggling to align his human will with his own Trinitarian will while remaining sinless since Jesus managed to overcome all his natural feelings to *not* deviate from the Trinitarian mission to go through with the Divine plan. - Jesus who is also fully God must have continually loves Himself *immanently* in Jesus, never ceasing to do so during the whole Passion, even at the cross when Jesus cried "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (!) We can safely assume that Jesus **as Man** could do perfectly the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" partly because in his human consciousness he feels and trusts that he is so fully loved by God. So far so good. My question has to do with characterizing what's going on in Jesus's human mind and will so that it can help us to be more like Jesus. For example, in our own walk of discipleship, it's common to distinguish "surrender" from "submission" which for the purpose of this question, I'm defining the two terms as follows: - "submission" as **negation of will** like a soldier doing something that he may not agree personally; this has been characterized by obedience out of **slavish** mentality or out of **fear**. Colloquially we say: "I do it simply because you told me to". At best, although it is done like a robot, I am still open to doing it with better motivation in the future. - "surrender" implies **aligning one's will with another's** thus with some level of agreement; this can be characterized by obedience out of **trust** mentality (like children) and by **love**. Colloquially we say: "I do it as you asked me to, although I need help in uniting my will with your perfect loving will because of .... (you name it)". So even though we don't feel like forgiving enemies, surrendering our selfishness to love difficult people, or dying as a martyr, because we always want to be yoked with Jesus (i.e. tagging along) we then rely on his Holy Spirit (Love) to strengthen us in uniting **in love** our will with Jesus's will. It is obvious that as children of God we are asked to "surrender", not to "submit" (per definitions above). Because Jesus is our model, I think **conceiving Jesus's struggle at Gethsemane as a "submission" (negating will) rather than as a "surrendering" (uniting in love) is out of bound**. Is this true? The difficulty seems to be **textual**: those who insist on literal meaning may interpret Jesus's "not as I will, but as you will" and the language "deny himself/ lose his life" (Matt 16:24-25) as a "submission", negating his human will. **But I think this is abhorrent, since there is no virtue in mere submission without love.** Rather, we should see Jesus's sinless internal struggle episode at Gethsemane as a revelation of how hard it is to love, that even Jesus, **while operating in his human nature**, had to struggle to align his human will with His own revealed divine will, as a model for us to unite **in love** our own will with our Father's will that is revealed to us in graced discernment. This is in contrast to acting as a slave / soldier who simply executes what Scriptures command us to do. How can the Trinity doctrine and Chalcedonian definition help us here? **My question is very specific**: Formally & philosophically, **what kinds of interaction of the 2 wills are allowed within the Chalcedonian orthodoxy?** **What are some examples of interaction that are out of bound?**

>Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [Matthew 28:16 KJV] The eleven had a specific appointment and at that appointment they were instructed : >And Jesus came and spake unto them [Matthew 28:18 KJV] Jesus spake unto *them*, that is to say, to the eleven. >And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [Matthew 28:18 KJ] Because all power in heaven and in earth has been given to Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, therefore he says to the eleven : >Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [Matthew 28:19 KJV] These words were uttered to the eleven and later another was called, specifically and particularly, by Jesus Christ's audible words, namely Saul of Tarsus, thereafter called Paul. To him was also given like commandment 'he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel'. Thereafter a ministry became evident, such as John Mark, Silvanus, Epaphras, Timothy and Titus. Not of the eleven but marked out as a ministry sent to the whole church (not to any specific location) and to propagate the gospel throughout the known world. Paul writes three epistles to this ongoing, next-generation ministry, instructing them in doctrine and in church government. These men, and only these men, may appoint elders. Here is a definite structure dependent upon the calling, directly, of Jesus Christ. Without that calling, generation by generation, there will be none to 'teach and baptise' among the nations. One cannot self-appoint oneself to the vocation or to the task. I can see no evidence here for a 'Great Commission' uttered to the entire church as though the congregations themselves had a 'commandment' as such from the risen and all-powerful Christ. Quite the opposite, the content of the epistles conveys a godly humility, household-centred Christianity and a very local influence among the parochial populace. To say 'the Great Commission' is to the entire body of the congregations, to my mind belittles the Ministry - that of teaching and preaching (to the assemblies and also to the whole earth) as a definite vocation to singularly called persons. Where did this idea come from of a 'Great Commission' which is generic to the entire body of Christ ? I cannot find such words in my bible. I am asking this question specifically of Trinitarian Protestants as it seems to me that the concept has generated from within that part of Christendom. ---------------------------------- The other matter which complicates this issue is what J N Darby called 'the notion of a clergyman ; sin against the Holy Spirit' that is to say the denial of a ministry sent to the entire church and the notion that each local assembly should have its own, private, appointed, salaried clergyman. But I shall ask another question on that second complication. ----------------------------------------- EDIT AFTER COMMENTS : I suggest that there are two aspects. One's local life, home life, church life; and there is the gospel being preached to all creation which is beyond the abilities or capacities of common believers and is the province of the especially called. Both are true. Both are immediate. Both are essential. Neither should be neglected. And one should not diminish the other.

Can Jesus encourage someone to commit sin? And furthermore, can Jesus hasten someone to commit a sin? In John 13:27 it reads: > And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, > That thou doest, do quickly.

In [Luke 14:26](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2014%3A26&version=DRA) (Douay-Rheims) we read: > If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. In [Matthew 22:39](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+22%3A39&version=DRA) (Douay-Rheims) we read: > And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. My understanding is that Jesus did not hate his parents. He did not live like he taught. I have never been told to hate my parents or myself by a spiritual director. They told me the opposite. In Matt 22:39 Jesus said that we should love our neighbours as thyself. But in Luke 14:26 Jesus says that you are supposed to hate yourself. This is confusing to me. I have been told that according to St. John Paul II's Catholic Philosophy, the opposite of love is not hate but use. **How does the Catholic Church reconcile both verses?**

Looking back at church history, the Universal Church has failed miserably at keeping Christ’s command when it comes to all Christians. > A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34–35, ESV2016) Jesus’ statements are clear unless one seeks to put a limit to God’s love as the lawyer responding to Jesus: > But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29, 2016) To which Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, from a group the lawyer hated, and concluded: > Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” (Luke 10:36–37, ESV2016) In case that isn’t enough, Jesus said, > “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,… (Matt. 5:43–44, ESV2016) We as Christians need to repent for how we have treated one another and how we have treated non-Christians, especially about our past history where Christians have gone as far as burning people at the stake for disagreeing with our particular beliefs. **While this extreme isn't present today, still the lack of love often is present today. This is a stark contradiction to the New Testament.** How will people know that we follow Christ if we do not love one another? While we as individuals are not responsible for the sins before we were born, should we not be clear to all people that we acknowledge as abhorrible those sins of the past done as a group under the same name we are under today? Those sins were stopped by government mandate rather than repentance. Some forms of fascism would like to bring some of these sins back.

Are Christian (Catholic) men allowed to cover their head? I've told no they can't, because Paul said not too, or some say yes, because Jesus himself did, and what Paul says didn't matter, but if a man is praying in private can he not cover his head? Wouldn't it be respectful for a man to cover his head in the presence of God and follow the ways of Jesus?

As Jesus continued his discourse, where many believed on him, he then goes on to say their father is the devil! It ends up with those very ones trying to stone him. ***Is there a contradiction between this verse 30…*** *“And as he spake these words, many believed on him”* ***and verse 59***, “*Then took they up stones to cast at him:* but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.” Or is it fair to say that Jesus’ discourse went on to expose a proud assumption, and false pride on their part, which betrayed they had no heart-felt belief? I ask this due to what Jesus said in ***verse 31***, *“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.”* Are the words Jesus then went on to speak designed to expose what was really in their hearts, as to whether that contradicted their professed belief in him? **I seek clarification from those who maintain there is a need for confession with the mouth that has sprung from heart-felt repentance, as opposed to those who might think a public confession of faith *comes first*, and is effectively viewed by them as the most important aspect of becoming a Christian.**