Tim’s Blog

False Humility Regarding the Lord’ Supper

December 28, 2022

Between Two Insurrectionists: Riots in the Capital

April 15, 2022

No, not that capital, silly. We’re talking about real insurrectionists here. It is Good Friday, after all.

So first things first.

Insurrectionists, Not Thieves

Jesus did not die between two thieves.

“What??” you exclaim. “My Bible tells me he did just that, in both Matthew and Mark” (Matthew 27:38, 44; Mark 15:27).

The Greek word used, however, is lestai (singular lestes). While this term apparently can refer to violent bandits (and thus “robbers”), it is not a term associated with what we generally think when we hear the word thief (pickpockets, burglars, larcenists etc). Such thieves would almost certainly never have been crucified.

read more »

Matthew 18 and Church Discipline

August 30, 2016

Matthew 18 is a series of portraits of grace: the grace to those who humble themselves as children, the parable of the lost sheep, and the parable of the unforgiving servant, with its attendant call to forgive our brothers 70×7 times. It also includes a warning against putting a stumbling block in front of other people (which is not at all the same as the modern notions regarding “being offensive”; rather, it is about not being the occasion of tempting others to sin).

In the midst of this is a short passage that, if considered carefully, provides discomfort for various Christians. I am referring in particular to vv 15–20, which in some Bibles comes under the heading “If Your Brother Sins Against You.”

The little passage is uncomfortable for those who pretend the Church has no authority, who think “Judge not, lest you be judged” means accepting everyone no matter what they do. In these verses, Jesus gives the Church the authority of binding and loosing, so that the impenitent are set outside the Church, with the promise that such activity will be ratified in heaven. All of that implies, of course, that the Church is supposed to exercise discipline. It implies that there is such a thing as sin, and more importantly, that recalcitrance (an insistence upon maintaining wrongdoing; a refusal to be corrected) is grounds for expulsion.

But the details of the passage also prove problematic for those who like to think of these verses as outlining “the steps of discipline,” which in fact is simply not true. read more »

Why the Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah Matters

March 27, 2016

In 1 Corinthians 15, the Apostle Paul identifies the resurrection as one of the cornerstone truths of the Christian faith. Along with the Messiah’s death “for our sins,” he identifies the resurrection with “the gospel” (1 Cor 15:1–4). He even goes so far as to say that if the Messiah has not risen, we believers are of all men most pitiable (v 19); indeed, we are still in our sins (17) and our faith is vain (14).

But why? Isn’t the resurrection just a proof of the deity of Christ? Is it really necessary for us?

Much in every way.

We see why this is so when we understand Romans 4:25, which says (literally) that Jesus our Lord was “delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised because of our justification.”

We like to talk about Jesus’ death as representative—carried out on our behalf. But that representative death by itself is an enactment of condemnation. (This is why the concept of substitution, while valuable, cannot carry within itself the whole significance of Christ’s work.)

It is Jesus’ resurrection that constitutes His vindication in the face of the condemnation against Him and us. In other words, His justification, which is why in 1 Timothy 3:16 Paul writes that God was “manifest in the flesh, justified by (Greek en) the Spirit, seen of angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

This is why if Jesus died but did not rise, we are still in our sins. If the representative Man was not justified, neither are the represented men. If the representative death did not issue in representative resurrection, then death and only death is rightly ours.

The resurrection is not simply a sign of the glory of Christ. It is that, of course—it is in response to it that James blurts out, “My Lord and my God!”

But it is more than that.

It is our hope.

Jesus the Water-and-Spirit Man

June 3, 2015

John’s Gospel is loaded with references to water.

The purification jars of water in Cana get transformed into wine jugs. Jesus tells Nicodemus that Israel must be reborn of water and Spirit, and then goes beyond the Jordan, where His disciples start baptizing more disciples than John. Meanwhile, John’s disciples are in a dispute with the Pharisees over purification—whose point of reference would be the baptisms of the Mosaic law.

Subsequently, Jesus goes “out of His way” (i.e. takes the direct route that self-respecting Jews wouldn’t take) to ask a Samaritan woman for some water, and then promises her “living water” (an allusion to the law’s requirement for living water). Then He goes back to Jerusalem and meets a man who has no one to throw him into the healing waters of Bethesda. Jesus heals him, and in so doing instructs him to break the rules against carrying burdens on the Sabbath.read more »

Nicodemus the Man

June 3, 2015

Good interpreters remind us that the chapter divisions in Scripture are not inspired. They certainly are useful—it’s much easier to find things! But when interpreting the Bible, we shouldn’t make the mistake of stopping or starting at a chapter break without thinking about the connections.

John 2–3 is a case in point.

In John 2, Jesus performs the water-into-wine miracle in Cana, and then goes to Jerusalem and cleanses the temple. These are both “signs” (albeit, of different sorts to our eyes, as the former is what we typify as “miracle,” while the latter is not), and many people believe on Jesus as a result of His signs (2:23).read more »

John 20:19–23: The True Adam Releases New Adams

April 22, 2014

As a lot of folks have recognized, there are Edenic themes in the resurrection scenes of the Gospel. This should not be surprising; Jesus’ resurrection is the commencement of a new creation, and the resurrection in particular therefore marks out Jesus as the new and true Adam. He is taken to be “the gardener,” which is both a mistake by Mary—and at the same time, precisely the truth.

But the Genesis-new creation theme does not end in the garden where Jesus is entombed. The new creation is not so readily restricted.read more »

Galatians 5 and the Farewell Discourse

June 16, 2013

There are a remarkable number of echoes between Galatians (and in particular, chapter 5) and Jesus’ Farewell Discourse in the Gospel of John. The chapter, and more broadly, the letter, is almost like an exposition of aspects of the Discourse.

For example:

1. The first part of John 15 is about bearing fruit by remaining in the vine, Jesus, and much of the surrounding material is about how Jesus will send the Spirit in His own place and as the one who communicates the things of Christ to His disciples. Meanwhile, the virtue list of Galatians 5 is about bearing the fruit of the Spirit.
2. John 15:6 warns that those who do not remain in the vine will be cast forth as branches; Galatians 5:4 warns that those who become circumcised have become severed from Christ.
3. John 15:12–17 highlights the commandment of love of the disciples for one another; Gal 5:13–14 highlights serving one another through love.
4. John 14:27 speaks of Christ’s peace which stands in contrast to that of the kosmos. Jesus says He leaves this peace with them, just after saying that He will send the Spirit to them (14:26). Then John 15:9–11 deal with love and joy. Meanwhile, Gal 5:22 lists love, joy, and peace as the first three aspects of the fruit of the Spirit.
5. In addition, the peace Jesus gives is in connection with a repeated encouragement that the disciples not be troubled in heart (μὴ ταρασσέσθω ὑμῶν ἡ καρδία; 14:1, 27); the opponents in Galatia are styled as “troublers” (Gal 1:7; 5:10, 12; cf 6:17, although 5:12 uses a different Greek term).
6. There is a repeated metaphor of following/way/going in both passages (Jn 13:36–37; 14:4–6; Gal 5:7, 16, 18, 25).
7. John 16:11 says that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged; the broader context in Galatians says that the world itself has been crucified (Gal 6:14).
8. Jesus speaks of the travail of birthpangs in John 16:21; Paul says he is having that travail for the Galatians in Gal 4:19.
9. There is a fairly strong theme of persecution in the Farewell Discourse (e.g. Jn 15:18ff) as well as in Galatians (1:13, 23; 4:29; 5:11; 6:12).
10. In Jn 14:19, Jesus says, “Because I live, you shall live also,” adding that whoever keeps His commandments and loves Jesus will be loved by Jesus and the Father; in Gal 2:20, Paul says, “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”
11. It is in the Farewell Discourse that Jesus elevates the disciples’ status from slaves to friends (Jn 15:15), a major theme in Galatians in the transition from rule by the paidagogos and the elements of the world to inheritance as mature sons (see esp Gal 3:23–4:10).

Given all these echoes, I also wonder a bit of Peter’s departure from table fellowship with Gentiles (Gal 2:11ff) makes Paul think of John 13:18, where Jesus cites the passage, “He who eats my bread has lifted up his heel against me.” Certainly, it would fit with what follows almost immediately: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who received whoever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me” (Jn 13:20). Interestingly, provision for the poor comes up in both close contexts too (Jn 15:29–30; Gal 2:10), although in John, it’s incidental, based on a false supposition.

There may be further connections, but my familiarity with the Farewell Discourse is considerably inferior to my familiarity with Galatians. Given that some of these themes are central to the gospel narrative, overlap shouldn’t be surprising. But the sheer number of resonances suggest there’s a bit more involved.

Which does raise interesting questions regarding the assumptions of scholars regarding the lateness of John’s Gospel, as well as how well-acquainted Paul really was with the words and deeds of Jesus.

The Parable of the Talents: Countering a Misreading

June 8, 2013

Rereading the Bible, and the Gospels particularly, has become a bit of a pastime. It is especially trendy to read them through a grid that makes Jesus’ message all about “the poor” and “social justice.” While I don’t deny that there is more than a grain of truth to that—Jesus was indeed concerned about the poor, and warned against worshiping Mammon—these new readings are frequently more problematic than the older interpretations which they intend to replace.

Adam Ross’s treatment of the “parable of the talents” (Matthew 25:14–30/Luke 19:11–27) is a case in point. In his view, the nobleman who goes away, leaving three servants with various amounts of money, is a depiction not of Jesus, but of someone wicked. After all, Jesus, friend of the poor (one is tempted to say Friend of the Poor^TM), would never depict Himself as a nobleman, and certainly not as one who would encourage violation of the law by requiring His servants to practice usury.

This reading, however is fraught with difficulties.

First, it assumes that the parable really is directly about money, whereas very few (if any) of Jesus’ parables are that direct regarding their subject matter. If that assumption is wrong, it falsifies everything, for several reasons, including the subversion of Jesus’ point about “gaining money at interest,” and equally the supposedly unjust character of the “nobleman” in view.

Second, this reading ignores verbal cues which tie this parable to other parables, particularly in Matthew’s Gospel. Five other times in Matthew, the same terminology of weeping and gnashing of teeth is used, and each time it is used to refer to divine judgment against those who reject Jesus or His kingdom, or abuse His kingdom’s servants. It is predicated of the “sons of the kingdom” who reject Jesus in 8:12; of the weeds in the field in 13:42; of the unrighteous “fish” in 13:50; of the man without the wedding garment in 22:13; and of the wicked servant who abuses his fellow servants during the delay of his master in 24:51.

Third, this power to cast the servant into outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, is not a power that could be aptly attributed to anyone other than God Himself. Nor, for that matter, would be the corresponding blessing, “enter into the joy of your master” (which is probably a reference to Ps 16:11)—even apart from observing the probable intended resonances of the term kurios (Lord, Master).

Fourth, in the preceding chapter in Matthew, it is Jesus who is depicted as a master who departs on a journey and returns to provide judgment (just as the nobleman does here), not someone or some group in Israel that is acting unjustly.

Fifth, this parable is about the nobleman’s own property (Mt 25:14), and in the Gospel of Matthew, it is God or Jesus who is the property holder and master, while it is Israel or its leaders who is/are entrusted with the household, property, and goods. See e.g. 24:45. Moreover, elsewhere “servants” are not the “servants” of the wicked, but of God or Jesus.

Sixth, the “harshness” of the nobleman has a specific context and it in fact fits well with what Ross insists upon in his conclusion: the nobleman judges those who do not do as he says, which of course includes serving one another and caring for the poor. The care of the household is given in trust, not for oneself, but for the Master.

Seventh, the “aristocratic” character of the master is not to the fore. Matthew does not even use the term “nobleman” (he simply mentions a man traveling to a far country; only Luke uses the term), but even if he had, the term is not at all unsuitable for a reference to King Jesus, who compares Himself to a rich householder in the near context of this very Gospel (again, e.g. 24:45).

Eighth, in Luke, Jesus puts forth this parable as a counter to those who supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear (in fullness?) immediately (Lk 19:11–12). This fits exactly with the parable’s picture of the master departing on a journey, as Jesus shortly does.

Ninth, Jesus does in fact have a habit of citing something that would be offensive and objectionable in terms of Torah, and subverting it to make His own point, just as He does here with the matter of usury. Think for example of His statement that whoever did not eat His flesh and drink His blood would have no life (Jn 6:53ff).

Ironically, the parable does fit in remarkably well with a castigation of Mammon when read as intended, i.e. in context with the other parables. Because how the things entrusted “bear interest” is not by handling them for oneself, but precisely in service to others. The master sets servants over the household in order to give his fellow servants food (24:45), for example.

Paul has a much better reading of the parable than Ross’s reading provides. In a passage about money, the apostle speaks in Galatians 6 of sowing to the Spirit, and we find that the time of harvest is eschatological. And the way of sowing to the Spirit is by partnering with faithful teachers of the Word, doing good to all, and particularly those of the “household” (Gal 6:10—does that sound familiar? cf Mt 24:45; the Greek words are closely related).

Yes, the way of the King mandates serving others, including with our material goods—a fact supported by the more familiar reading of this parable, when rightly understood. Those who invest their assets in the “flesh”—the old kosmos—will from the flesh reap corruption, while those who invest them in the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Willing to Die a Soldier

March 31, 2013

We often are reminded of Peter’s threefold denial of Christ in connection with his claim that he was ready to die for his Lord. Quite aptly, we see this as the failure to know his own heart. But it would perhaps be even more apt to see this as a failure to know the heart of his Lord.

For the first time today, it struck me that from one perspective, Peter was not wrong when he said that he was ready to die for Jesus. In truth, it could be said that the eleven disciples generally were ready to do so.

From what information do I derive this surprising claim? From the record of the Gospels we have read repeatedly: when the band of soldiers comes to arrest Jesus in the Garden, the badly outnumbered disciples do not flee. Rather, Peter immediately takes up one of the two swords available and begins to fight, striking off an ear with his first blow. It is only thereafter, when Jesus makes clear that He will not have them defend Him and themselves (outnumbered as they are) that they all flee.

The lesson to be learned from this, I think, is that the issue was not whether Jesus’ disciples were sufficiently courageous men. They were indeed so. They could countenance death if they must face it as possible casualties in a battle on behalf of their Messiah.

But that is not the death which Jesus had in mind, and if it were such a battle that He were about to enjoin, He would scarcely have needed them or their two swords. At the very authoritative power of His Word, after all, those who came to arrest Him fell backward to the ground (John 18:6).

Instead, however, Jesus tells His disciples to put up their swords, and goes as a lamb to the slaughter. This is as He had promised, but yet as they had not understood, and when He does so, they flee from Him.

The question Jesus puts to us is not whether we are ready to die for Him. The question with which He searches us is whether that death that we die will be the death of the cross, or the death of the soldier.