WWUTT 890 Q&A Inviting Unbelievers, Same-Sex Couple Baby Showers, and the Bible Whispers About Sexual Sins?

Biblical Myths That Are Not Actually in the Text

Does the Bible say not to invite unbelievers into your home? Should you attend a baby shower for a same-sex couple? And does the Bible whisper about homosexual sin? Some sensitive topics today, but the Bible has answers for them when we understand the text.

This is When We Understand the Text, a daily Bible study in the Word of Christ. If you'd like to submit a comment or a question to our ministry, email us at whenweunderstandthetext at gmail .com. Here once again is Pastor Gabe.

Thank you, Becky. You're welcome. Again, being Friday, we are responding to questions from listeners. And if I've got time at the very end, I've also got an email from somebody asking about the latest video which critiques a statement that was made by J .D. Greer in a sermon he preached at his church back in January.

Okay. So I'll play that video and also the criticism that we received regarding that toward the end if we've got time. But first, on Twitter, there was a liberal professor at a liberal arts college, small college I'd never even heard of before.

I had to look it up, even find out where it was. Okay. But he made this tweet. He made the following tweet. Now, this guy teaches some kind of religion class, but he's not a Christian. Okay. As I was looking through his Twitter, yeah, he's not a believer.

Here was what he tweeted. He said, what's your favorite example of something that people see in the biblical texts but that isn't actually there? And he said, my two favorites. Number one, the apple in Eden.

Okay. Because they did not actually eat an apple. It doesn't say that in the text anyway, that it was an apple that they ate. And then number two, Moses floating down the Nile. Yeah.

When I had first heard about this tweet, I thought it was Moses as a grown man floating down the Nile. I was totally confused.

Like, when did that happen? When was Moses doing the dead man's float down the Nile? That's kind of weird. No. In the story in Exodus 2, it says that they made a basket for him, covered it in pitch so it would be waterproof, and they just set it in the reeds.

Right. So, he wasn't actually ever floating down the Nile and then just ended up in Pharaoh's daughter's bath area or something. That was who came down into the Nile to bathe and found Moses in a basket in the reeds, but he never floated in her direction.

And then Moses' sister was nearby watching to see who would find the basket and who would take Moses. And then came to Pharaoh's daughter and says, I know somebody who can nurse him for you, which was Moses' mother.

Yes. Moses' mother got paid to raise her own child.

How would you like that? Ah, that would be an interesting... I don't know. I don't think I would like that so much. But I mean, if I had to, I would settle for it.

Sure. I mean, Moses wasn't in his mother's home. Right. He grew up in the palace, but anyway. Right. You'd still get paid for raising your own child.

That would be an interesting time period. Interesting arrangement. Yes. Arrangement. That's a good way to word it. Yes. Anyway.

Yes. I'm joking about something that was actually extremely tragic because of the number of Israelite children that were killed. Anyway, so some of the responses to this tweet were really good. And pretty common.

We've even addressed some of these myths in various what videos. Things that people say are in the Bible, but are not actually there. One of my favorites was the Daniel diet. Yeah. Because this diet that Daniel and his friends were on was not...

It didn't cause them to lose weight. It caused them to gain weight. Yes. And muscle. Right. So, it's very funny when somebody will use that to say, Hey, now we need a Daniel diet plan. Yeah. Yeah. To help you lose weight.

This one was good. The Book of Revelations. Oh, yeah. Because it's the Book of Revelation. Right. Singular. Not Revelations. An innkeeper in the story of Jesus' birth. The Immaculate Conception, of course, which is the Catholic doctrine that claims that Mary was born without sin.

That's not in the Bible. Computer chips are the mark of the beast. Right? You know what I'm talking about? No. You really don't know what that reference is? No. All of the... We have not watched enough corny apocalyptic rapture movies, babe.

I'm okay with that.

I'm okay with being out of the loop on that one. They all...

All of them are, you know, a little computer chip in the back of the hand or in the forehead, and that's the mark of the beast. Okay.

Okay, right. Because whenever they were chipping people, they started talking about chipping people that... Everybody's like, it's the mark of the beast. Right. Yeah, right. Okay, I'm following you now.

But that's not in the Bible. Okay, right. And admittedly, people who claim that that's the way that the mark of the beast is going to be, they're not saying that's in the Bible that way. It's just the logical conclusion based on our modern technology and the way things are going these days.

Yeah. I still hold that the mark of the beast is figurative. It's not literal. So you think of the command that's given to us in Deuteronomy 6, starting in verse 6, these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.

You shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, and when you lie down and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.

So may the work of your hands and the things that you look at, the thoughts that you think, may everything that you do be conformed to the word of God. You think of the contrast to that being the mark of the beast.

Right. That people who do the things that they have seen their father, the devil do. Going back to what we've referenced earlier this week in John 8, verse 44, you are of your father, the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.

So those who do the works of Satan will show by their hands, by their works that they do, that they're children of Satan. And the thoughts they think with their head. The frontlets between the eyes. Yeah.

That they think the thoughts of the devil rather than the thoughts of God. So that's just the contrast to God's instruction to his people that his word should be as a sign on our hand and as frontlets between your eyes.

Gotcha. So anyway, that's the way that I understand the mark of the beast. But when you unhitch. From the Old Testament, right. Yeah. Somebody else made the comment. Apache helicopters are also not in the Bible.

That comes from the late great planet Earth, which was the how Lindsay book. Okay. Yeah. You didn't know. I've never heard that. You missed. You missed that whole rapture period of. Yeah, that's okay.

The whole rapture literature. The statement God helps those who help themselves. Yeah. Also not in the Bible. That the devil's real name is Lucifer. Also did a video on that one. People laughing at Noah for building an arc.

That's true. That's not actually mentioned in the scriptures. We just assume that would be the case. Right. But that isn't mentioned. Jesus changed Saul's name to Paul. Now, to be honest, I've actually never heard a preacher say that.

I've never heard a pastor say that Jesus changed Saul's name to Paul. I think we just kind of assume that God changed his name. Right. But the reality is that they were both his name. Saul was his Hebrew name.

Right. Paul was his Gentile name. So it's not that Paul changed his own name. But when he went to preach to the Gentiles, which is what God was calling him to do, he used his Gentile name since he was a Roman citizen.

Right. So that the Gentiles would be more receptive of him. As he said to the Corinthians, I became all things to all people. So to the Gentiles, he became as a Gentile. Right. He would use a Gentile name so that they wouldn't immediately dismiss this guy as, oh, he's preaching about his Jewish God.

Right.

We don't want to hear about that. So sort of like Francis and Francesca. Same name. Is it? Yeah.

Oh, okay. For a girl. Yes. Okay. I was going to say, oh, they got no many men named Francesca. No. Francis is short for Francesca, I guess. Or is the English equivalent to the Italian name? Is that what that would be?

Yeah. Or the Latin name?

They're the same name. And like one's Italian and one's American. Okay. Sure. That'll work. I learned it on one of my old movies. And then lastly, the rapture.

Yes. There's another one. Now, you kind of have to qualify that one, though, because the rapture is in the Bible, but it's the same event as the return of Christ. It's not like there's a secret rapture that takes place where everybody just disappears.

That's not in the Bible. But then after that, there were a bunch of folks that just kind of hijacked that thread. Of course, since the guy posting it in the first place is a liberal, he's not even a believer himself.

So a bunch of people posted a bunch of stuff that was just frankly clueless to what the text actually says. For example, a woman named Kimberly. Well, I'll say this. They're not only clueless to what the text says.

They're even clueless to what the Christian arguments even are. It's like they've never actually listened to what a Christian has to say about what the Bible says concerning this matter or this issue.

So this woman named Kimberly says this is something that is not in the scriptures. I wish everybody knew is not actually in the biblical text. She says the only people called to evangelize about the resurrection of Christ were or are men.

Where has she ever heard that the only people called to evangelize about the resurrection of Christ are men? Unless you find some fringe lunatic. I've never heard anybody say that only men should be evangelizing or sharing the good news of the resurrection of Christ with anybody.

I don't even know where she gets that from. Another woman named Terry said what's not in the Bible, an absolute edict against women speaking in church. Again, where has she ever heard that argument? These are all straw man arguments.

Nobody has ever said these things before. Now, the reason why I single out these comments is because they had dozens of likes on them. So it's not like somebody just made a comment. It was just some random comment, but they were also well liked by the other people who were leaving comments.

So multiple people believe what these two women were saying. Interesting. Another fellow by the name of Johnson said I wish people realized that there is no harmony between the gospels. I sent him our what video on that.

Awesome. A fellow named JC said there is no coherent narrative in the Bible, which is absurd. But of course, as it says in 1 Corinthians 2, 14, the naturally minded man cannot understand the things of God.

Or even in 1 Corinthians 1, 18, where it says the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing. But to those who are being saved, it is the power of God. Fellow by the name of Andrew says God is a man is not in the Bible.

Now, there's a sense in which that's true, because Jesus says in John 4, God is spirit. Right. And those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. But the way that God has revealed himself to us and referred to himself is in the masculine.

Right. And so we must refer to him in the masculine, not in the feminine. Jesus, of course, was a man.

So he means as a male or a man? Yeah, I don't know. That statement's not qualified.

OK. I'm not sure. Yeah. So like I said, there is a sense in which that's true. Right. Because God is spirit. But it seems like just based on the nature of the people who are leaving comments and the number of people that liked that comment.

Very true. Yeah. And he's trying to oppose God being referred to in the masculine at all. Another fellow named Andrew, different Andrew, said something that's not in the Bible, but I wish everybody knew is not in the Bible.

And he had dozens of likes on this comment. OK. Monotheism. Hmm. Yet Exodus 20, verse three, God said, You shall have no other gods before me. That's interesting. Deuteronomy six. I've already quoted starting at verse six, verses four and five.

Say here. Oh, Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and all your strength. And then let's see. Isaiah 44, eight.

Is there a God besides me? There is no rock. I know not of any. And then later on, chapter forty five, verse five. I am the Lord. There is no other besides me. There is no God. That's monotheism, folks.

Right. There is only one God. Fellow by the name of Benjamin said there there is no creatio ex nihilo in the Bible or created out of nothing. Oh, that's what that is in Latin. So Hebrews 11, three says, By faith, we understand that the universe was created by the word of God so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Someone else said a prohibition on polygamy. That's not in the Bible. Now, there's a certain sense in which that's true. There is no absolute statement that's made in the Bible. Thou shalt not be a polygamist or have or have multiple wives.

You have one man and one wife. Yes.

But yeah, right. Jesus statement in Matthew 19.

Be a man of one wife.

That right. That's the the qualification for an elder is that he must be a one woman man. He must be the husband of one wife, because if he's going to be the example of spiritual maturity to his congregation, this is God's intention for marriage, that there would be one man and one wife.

And so he must set that example for his congregation. There are people that have raised the argument and have said, you know, that that statement in particular means that there were a lot of people in that particular time in the first century Greco Roman world that had multiple wives.

But an elder of the church could not have multiple wife, multiple wives. He had a multiple personality disorder. Wife couldn't have that. Yeah, there you go. He had to be a one woman man because that's the standard.

That's that's what God originally intended marriage to be, that it would be one man and one woman for life.

He made only Eve for Adam. That's right.

And Jesus points this out in Matthew 19. And by the way, John 1 3 says that all things were created by him and for him. So it is Jesus Christ who created marriage. So he's saying in Matthew 19, here's what I made marriage to be.

Right. That a man shall leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh to one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let man not separate.

Another way you can understand that, and I'm not adding to the text or changing the text to say this, what God has created, let man not redefine. So this is the way that God intended for marriage to be.

Now, let's say a missionary went into another part of the world and he's evangelizing to a people group in which the husbands have many wives. If he becomes a Christian, more often than not, the missionary will not encourage the man to only be united to his first wife and then dismiss all the others.

Because what ends up happening is children grow up without fathers. And so that would be a terrible situation. Right. For that culture in particular, but rather they would remain faithful to their wives, not marry any other wives and teach their children to only have one spouse.

That's how they should go about doing that. Right. So again, there's no like absolute prohibition on polygamy and you have men in the Bible who did have multiple wives, Abraham, Jacob, David. But those are not a permissive texts.

That's not God saying it's okay to have multiple wives. Right. Another person said that the Bible doesn't say everyone is descended from Adam and Eve. Yeah, on the contrary, it does. I was going to say.

We have all descended from Adam and have inherited his sin nature. That's Romans chapter five and also first Corinthians chapter 15. So that is stated in the text. But also if you follow the genealogies, follow the genealogies in Genesis and you follow the genealogies, even as they pertain to Christ or more specifically, the one in Luke, because it goes all the way back to Adam.

Okay. But there you have all men of creation. All men and women are descended from Adam and Eve. They are our great, great, great, great ten times something power. I was going to say. Grandparents. Right.

All that. No, I'm not going to try to go through all of that. All right. Now let's get to let's get to our actual questions here from from our listeners. This first one comes from Joseph and he says, Hello, Pastor Gabe and Becky.

My name is Joseph from Hampstead, Maryland. Thank you for your ministry. It's truly been a blessing to me. I listen to your Q &A session every week on the way to work. I have the following two questions that are unrelated in nature.

So I'll do the first question. We'll answer that one and then we'll do a second question. Sounds good. First, in light of Second John nine through eleven, how do you feel about inviting unbelievers in your home?

Recently, my wife and I welcomed two Mormon missionaries into our home to share the true gospel and to expose the darkness of Mormonism. Typically, I would suggest meeting in a cafe or a public location.

But in this case, we have a newborn. So the home was more convenient. The meeting went really well. And when we ended, they seemed to ponder the gospel and asked to take home a Bible. So here is here's Second John nine eleven.

And this is in the New American Standard because this is what this is your response to them. Yes. OK, right. But reading the text that he sent me in the New American Standard. Oh, he did. Yes. So he says anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God.

The one who abides in the teaching. He has both the father and the son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him a greeting for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

OK, so to understand the context of this, whether or not we should be inviting unbelievers into our home. Right. Or is Second John telling us that that's prohibited? Christians should not invite unbelievers into our home.

Go back to the very beginning of the letter. OK, Second John, starting in verse one, the elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth. And not only I, but also all who know the truth because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever.

Grace, mercy and peace will be with us from God, the father and from Jesus Christ, the father's son in truth and love. I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth just as we were commanded by the father.

And now I ask you, dear lady, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one that we have had from the beginning that we love one another. And this is love that we walk according to his commandments.

This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning so that you should walk in it. And then at the conclusion of the letter, I'm going to skip down to the conclusion. Last two verses, though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink.

Instead, I hope to come to you and talk face to face so that our joy may be complete. The children of your elect sister greet you. Now, there are some who interpret this letter as John writing to a particular woman.

But the elect lady in this case is the church. This is the church and her children, those who are part of this particular congregation. For John to say, I rejoice greatly to find some of your children are walking in the truth.

So in his first letter, the first epistle of John, which is first John, he's writing to several churches. Several churches have received that letter. Second John is to one church. And then the letter to third John or letter to third John.

Third John, which is his third epistle, is specifically to one person. And that is Gaius. So we have a letter that's written to multiple churches. We have a letter written to one church. And then we have a letter written to a single individual.

That's the way that John's epistles are laid out. When we get to verses 9 through 11, which says that if anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting.

The reference to house is the same as reference to an elect lady. It's the church? Right, it's the church. Lady is figurative, house, and therefore her house is figurative. It's a reference to the church.

So don't let anyone come in teaching a different gospel. Gotcha. That's basically what that means. Now you have somebody who is curious about the gospel. They've heard it. They want to hear more about it.

Sure, come on in. Regardless of whether or not they're a believer, because apparently the Holy Spirit is wooing them to something. Though there should be an expectation that over a period of time, they're eventually going to repent of their sin and follow Jesus Christ.

So anyway, using discernment there as to how long that process should take. But regarding this question about what this means about inviting a person into your home, this is in regards to the church and not letting a person teach any different gospel.

And we find that instruction multiple places. Paul saying it to Timothy, 1 Timothy 1. Paul rebuking the Galatians for even believing a different gospel in Galatians 1. So don't let anyone bring a teaching other than that which flows from the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So therefore, this passage, 2 John verse 10, does not mean you shouldn't be inviting unbelievers into your home. Now I will say though, I'm kind of troubled at the number of Christian teachers I will hear say, you need to open up your home to unbelievers.

Okay. You need to have unbelievers. I've heard it a lot. Yeah, and have them around your table and play with your kids. And I'm going, no. There are people who are unbelievers I do not want in my home.

We will meet in a neutral location, but I'm not going to have you in my house. Right. I don't trust your speech. I don't trust your language. I see no obligation to have to do that. Now, I will say you should be hospitable to the people in your church.

Okay. And if you've got somebody in your church, you've seen that family there. Maybe you've gone to church with them for a couple of years, but you've never really gotten to know them before. Invite them over for dinner.

Yeah. Open your house up. Eat some dinner. Talk Christ. Yeah. Play a game. But don't feel obligated to have to invite your unbelieving neighborhood to your house. There's no obligation on you to have to do that.

But if you do, if you do invite an unbeliever into your home, that's fine. You're not somehow going against 2 John verse 10. But you would be if you were to put them in your pulpit. Right. You know. Okay.

Or give them a Sunday school class or something. And they start teaching something to somebody that is not at all the gospel. Gotcha. That would be bad. And there are surprisingly a lot of churches that do this.

What? Really? Because they want to get people plugged in. Okay. And so just because they've expressed, hey, I love Jesus. And I'd love to volunteer. You know, give me a Sunday school class to teach.

See, there's a lot of people who I've come across that are, they seem like they're still babies in the faith. And they're given a platform to, like, really speak out and write articles and whatever. And I'm just like, I don't think that they're ready for that kind of platform.

Like, it's just, it's too much too soon. Yeah. And they really need to have more growth and be mentored more.

Yeah. Or even just tested for crying out loud. Oh, yeah. That too. I mean, like, do you even understand, articulate the gospel for me. Can you even tell me what that is? I have a pastor friend who, when he took over the church that he was hired at, sat down with the elders and asked them to explain to him the gospel.

And even they couldn't do it. Wow. So, just because a person claims to be a Christian doesn't automatically mean, oh, great. Well, they're ready to lead a Sunday school class, volunteer with the kids.

Yeah. Help out in Awana or whatever. Folks have to be tested. Even professing believers, you need to test and understand that what they believe is the truth. Right. And that they're ready to teach such a thing.

And not just teaching, but like you were saying with helping out with Awana and stuff like that, the children's Bible studies. Right. Just make sure they're, you know, walking in the face at the very least.

Yes. Not just, oh, hey, they seem like a nice person and they volunteered. So, of course, I'm going to give them a spot, you know.

Because there's so many churches, especially that seeker sensitive mentality that they think in order to retain people who are interested in our church, we got to give them something to do. So, we'll automatically plop them into a Sunday school class.

A person that has never even been tested or asked if they understand the basics of the gospel. Especially somebody, yeah, like you said, it's a baby believer. Right. Who just became a Christian. You've actually given them a teaching platform as though to approve that whatever they believe is automatically true.

There's also a very prevailing thought that's very common. I encounter this among my friends, sadly enough. Not people in my own church, but just friends who claim to be Christians. Friends and family members that claim to be Christians.

Is that I have the Holy Spirit. And I don't have any more or less of the Holy Spirit than you have the Holy Spirit. So, therefore, I'm just as capable of teaching as you are. And I hear that a lot. That's one of the most common arguments that I hear, in fact, against plurality eldership.

Because why are we going to let this plurality of men oversee the teaching in our church? Do I not have the Holy Spirit? Am I not just as capable of being able to discern what good teaching and bad teaching is as these men are?

The answer to that question is no, you're not. Wow.

It's almost like an arrogant statement. It really is.

What's strange is you don't seem to challenge that regarding the pastor. But once the proposal is set forth of a plurality eldership that these men would oversee and approve any and all teaching aspects in the church, suddenly it becomes this defensive, well, I have the Holy Spirit, too.

Why do these guys have the privilege of being able to do that? That's a very common argument. I encounter that quite a bit when it comes to those who are opposed to the plurality eldership model, even though that is the biblical model.

We've kind of rabbit trailed. We have quite a bit. Sorry. But we always do. This is just standard fare. This is true. Standard fare for when we understand the text. So the second question that comes from Joseph, he says, My second question has to do with a work situation that has come up.

I work at a secular university and with a team of 13. A member of that team is homosexual, and she and her partner adopted a baby. The team is throwing her a baby shower and asks that each team member contribute a gift.

My question is, should a Christian attend an event like this? Should I sit in my office? If so, this would look rather standoffish, but something I would be willing to do if needed. Should I take a vacation day?

If I do this, I would have to do the same every time something like this comes up, and it seems like I am running away from the issue. Should I go and bring only gifts that benefit the baby, i .e. diapers, wipes, and or a Christian children's book?

There is one believer on the team, and I asked her thoughts, and she is unsure what to do as well. One of the things that we thought about was, Jesus did sit with publicans and sinners. He didn't run from these situations, but would I be embracing or showing that I am supporting homosexuality if I attend?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Joseph. So let me back up here. I work at a secular university with a team of 13. A member of that team is homosexual, and she and her partner adopted a baby.

The team is throwing her a baby shower and asks that each member contribute a gift. I would say that you not attend, and I'm sorry this is putting you on the spot. I'm sorry that this may actually cost you your job, but you should also say why.

You should say why you're not going to attend that event. Again, Joseph, I know that's really placing a lot on you, and my heart aches for you seeing what could potentially be coming down the pike. You could lose your job.

I get that. But I don't think that you should just abstain from this without word. I think that you should explain why. Now, I have prepared for you a statement, and I'm going to email this to Joseph.

You don't have to say exactly this, but what you say should sound something like it. You should say, I am a Christian, and I believe that God created marriage to be between a man and his wife. Not only does the Bible say this is what marriage is, we can observe this through general revelation in nature.

A man and a woman are naturally compatible for procreation. A family begins with a husband and wife. A woman and a woman cannot procreate together. These two women are doing something that is against my faith, and it is against nature.

Therefore, it is also harmful to the child they are adopting. This child needs a mother and a father. And the child is being deprived of that because these two women want to use someone else's baby to justify what is contrary to the laws of nature.

I cannot go along with this. I care for this woman, my co-worker, too much to lead her to believe that what she is doing is healthy. It is not healthy for her, for this woman she says is her partner, and it is not healthy for the child they say they are adopting.

I wish her the best, and I pray for her salvation that God would have mercy on her. But please respect my beliefs and permit me to abstain from this celebration. And I think that that is the way that you should go.

I don't think that you should run from the situation not having said anything. For yes, Jesus did sit with publicans and sinners, sit with the tax collectors and the sinners. Right. But he told them to repent.

He did. He told them go and sin no more. Jesus never hung out with them. Like that's the term that gets used.

And the woman at the well, he just laid out all of her.

He was there and it was in public. Right. And he laid out all of her sins. Yeah, he did. He told her that she had many husbands, revealed his awareness of that. Yeah. And then she changed the subject.

You know, even the man that was healed at the pool of Bethesda in John chapter 5, Jesus said to him, go and sin no more. Now, we taught on John chapter 8 a couple of weeks ago. And I said that particular story in John 8 verses 1 through 11 was not actually written by John.

But nevertheless, this woman who was caught in adultery and was brought before Jesus, he still says to this woman, go and sin no more. So there's never an occasion where Jesus is just hanging out with sinners and not saying anything about it.

That's a common argument that gets used. Well, Jesus hung out with sinners. He didn't hang out with them. No. As though that was his regular common company. He just didn't try to. Well, for example, he didn't try to walk on the other side of the road.

Right. Like in the parable of the good Samaritan. Or where you have the account of, like you mentioned, Jesus at the well with the woman of Samaria. I mean, it was uncommon for Jews to even walk through Samaria.

Right. They would go around Samaria. Right. But Jesus has no prejudice against anybody. So he went through Samaria. A group of people, by the way, who did not truly know and fear God. This is an entire nation of people who did not know God.