Getting real

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets." (Matthew 23:29-31)

The Pharisees witness against themselves by not admitting they were sons of Ahab and would have sought to murder Elijah just as much as he did. They are lying to themselves and acting out a part to everyone else (the root meaning of hypocrites). Their way out of woe and into blessing is through reality - not fantasy stories. And its the same for us. We can be honest and confess that we find Jeremiah and Ezekiel very weird and scary. We can confess that we would have dismissed Jonah as a religious nutcase.

We only condemn ourselves by our own words and we should do just that. We cannot justify ourselves (that is declare ourselves just), because it is "God who justifies". And praise God that in Jesus he does just that!

The words of Jesus on the cross - "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" - belong to those who crucified Christ, and those like us who would have done the same.

The parable of the Great Banquet

I was chatting today with a friend who is preaching on the Parable of the Great Banquet in Luke 14:15-23 soon.

It's a popular passage, and rightly so. It beautifully depicts the free offer of the Gospel and the celebratory and joyful nature of the Kingdom of God. However, from Luke 14:15-23 alone you could easily gloss over the brief mention of anger and preach the Gospel as a nice invitation to a party that is worth accepting, but that if you choose to try out your oxen or spend time with your wife then that's okay. You're missing out, but each to his own.

Matthew's account in 22:1-14 is a bit more chilling. In his account the servant carrying the invitation is killed and the king responds by destroying the murderers and burning their city. A guy then turns up without a wedding garment and is cast out into the outer darkness. There is still a party, but I suspect Luke's account is the more popular one today.

But my friend pointed out that Luke's account in chapter 14 follows chapter 13 which includes some stark warnings of its own. For example, Jesus in verse 22 is the servant carrying the invitation by preaching the through the towns and villages. He is the door into the Kingdom of God, but there will be a time when the door will be shut and people will plead to enter but will not be admitted. Outside the house he says there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' but inside there will be feasting (vv. 28-29).

Luke's Jesus is not the 'nice' Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke depict a Jesus who preaches judgement to come. Very sobering for me to be reminded.

Render to God the things that are God's

'Jesus said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" They said, "Caesar's." Then he said to them, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."' (Matt 22:20-21)

'the language Jesus used here for "image" is eikon, from which we get the English word "icon." In a word, Jesus was able to take us back to the garden, back to the beginning, back to Adam and Eve. The denarius coin might have been made in the emperor's image. But Adam and Eve were "minted" in God's image and likeness - all human beings (including Caesar) have been made as icons of God, imaging the Creator and serving as his representatives in the world...

'Jesus makes it clear that God is not merely interested in our wallets, he wants all of us because he is the Creator of all. Since we are made in God's image - since we are imprinted with the image of God - we should render everything we have, our very selves, to him.

'But who has given everything to God? Who has lived a life poured out for others with a pure heart, upheld justice and righteousness, avoided sin completely, both publicly and privately? Who has loved God with their whole heart, soul, strength, and mind? Who has consistently loved neighbor as oneself? We owe what we cannot pay, discarding what we should love and diminishing what we should exalt. Thus, we find ourselves left with the age-old question posed by Jesus himself when he asked, "What shall a man give in return for his soul?" (Matt. 16:26)...

'Here we encounter the unspoken paradox of Jesus' encounter with the Pharisees. For only Jesus is able "to render to God the things that are God's." Only he can give what is required in exchange for our lives. Thus as he offers himself, he offers himself as a substitute for us, in our place. The paradox of Jesus' response here is that we owe everything to God but we cannot give it, so God himself will give what he demands. This will be God's great gift to the world: himself.'

(pp. 66-67, Kelly M. Kapic, with Justin L. Borger, God So Loved, He Gave: Entering the Movement of Divine Generosity)

As I read this I marvelled. This is the old, old story of substitutionary atonement. Yet it never fails to move my heart that God the Father would give his Son to pay the debt I owe. I've heard it thousands of times, but it never looses it's shine. There is nothing like it!

A few notes on parallels in Matthew's account of Judas' death

This post is basically a plea for help interpreting this passage:

Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."

(Matthew 27:3-10)

1. Jesus and Judas, David and Ahithophel

Jesus is of course the new David, who was betrayed just as David was. Perhaps the worst betrayal for David was of his son Absalom, and of his chief advisor Ahithophel to Absalom's side. Ahithophel's advice is ignored by Absalom in favour of Hushai's, David's mole in Absalom's court, and his response is extreme. He

"saddled his donkey and went off home to his own city. He set his house in order and hanged himself, and he died and was buried in the tomb of his father." (2 Samuel 17:23)

This is must be an intended allusion I think. The parallel is so strong. Any thoughts on its significance? In particular any thoughts on whether it helps us understand the differences between Luke and Matthew's account of Judas' death?

2. The field at Anathoth and the field of blood

Most commentators seem to think that the reference to Jeremiah is a mistake (e.g. Calvin: "The passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake, instead of Zechariah, (11:13) for in Jeremiah we find nothing of this sort, nor any thing that even approaches to it[!]"). However, some point out a possible parallel in Jeremiah 32 but don't really make anything it. I do think Jeremiah 32 is likely to have been in Matthew's mind just as much as Zechariah:

Jeremiah said, "The word of the Lord came to me: Behold, Hanamel the son of Shallum your uncle will come to you and say, 'Buy my field that is at Anathoth, for the right of redemption by purchase is yours.'...

And I bought the field at Anathoth from Hanamel my cousin, and weighed out the money to him, seventeen shekels of silver....For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land

Zechariah 11 mentions thirty pieces of silver, the potter and the throwing of the silver into the temple. Jeremiah mentions silver and the purchase of a field. However I just can't see what Matthew is trying to say by drawing the parallel with Jeremiah. Jeremiah is a passage filled with hope, as Jeremiah is investing in the land because he trusts God's promises. But the priests buying the field of blood... I don't have a clue. Any help?

The Great Commission of Cyrus

The last verse of the Hebrew Bible is remarkably similar to the end of the Gospel of Matthew:

"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, 'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him. Let him go up'" (2 Chronicles 36:23)

"Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'" (Matthew 28-18-20)

Both explain that they have been given kingly authority (by God) over the whole earth. Both commission a group of people to leave their homes to build a temple; in one case the Second Jerusalem Temple, in the other the temple of the church. Both promise that God will go with them; the Jews by "the LORD", the Apostles by Jesus.

(Once again, credit to Greg Beale.)

Seeing only sin

Dietrich Bonhoeffer bluntly states that:

the Lord will judge us each according to our works without partiality. For each person's works will become apparent, and to each the Lord will give "recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:6ff; Matt 16:27). Whatever has not already received its judgment here on earth will not remain hidden on judgment day, but must come to light.

(p. 277, Discipleship)

The editor's footnotes also quote the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) as further support.

[But a] surprising point arises from the fact that in Jesus' story the sheep think they are goats and the goats are sure they are sheep. "When did we see you naked, and not clothe you?" the latter boast. To these goats, who insist on following the law (and think they get perfect marks in so doing), the king replies, "You missed one! As often as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." Try living by the law, and you will be toast. On the contrary, the poor befuddled sheep [...] cannot seem to see their gifts and works at all. "When did we see you naked, etc., and clothe you?" The king answers, "I remember one time." Rather like those poor split-brained disciples of the Sermon on the Mount, whose right hand did not know what the left was doing, these people's good works sneak up on them and remain hidden from to them (but not necessarily to others) their whole life long. The only thing Christians truly sense is their desperate need for a Savior, the Good Shepherd, who seeks the lost.

(italics original, p. 93, Timothy Wengert, A Formula for Parish Practice)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer doesn't disagree. We should not respond to the doctrine of judgement by works by looking at our achievements and trusting in them.

The saints themselves are unaware of the fruit of sanctification they bear. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. If they become curious to know something in this matter, if they decide to engage in self-contemplation, then they would have already torn themselves away from the root and their time of bearing fruit would have passed [...] In their own lives, only the saints see strife, hardship, weakness and sin. And the more maturity they gain in the state of sanctification, the more they recognize themselves as being overcome, as those who are dying according to the flesh.

(p. 266f, Discipleship)

As I once heard Dick Lucas preach on Romans 8: the Spirit witnesses to our adoption by making us aware of the constant presence of the battle with our old nature.

But don't you know people just like that? I do. People who cheerfully give and give, but have no awareness of the good works they are doing. They're just being normal in their own eyes, or perhaps not even doing enough. But sometimes other people see how exceptional the giving is, and give thanks for them.

Do not be anxious

Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? [...God will] clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

(Matthew 6)

Jesus sees a things a bit like this:

God gives us life and looks after our body through food, drink and clothing. The problem comes when we expect those things are the ultimate source of our life and body. Is it Tim Keller who says that we should not make good things ultimate things? Jesus is saying the same.

Martin Luther (on whom Keller relies) asks:

What does it mean to have a god? or, what is God? Answer: A god means that from which we are to expect all good...(source)

I think that is the best definition going. It also shows that being anxious is not just lack of trust, it is idolatry.

The harvest is plentiful

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, 'The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest.' (Matthew 9:36-38)

A friend wondered this weekend why when Jesus says that the harvest is plentiful he finds that nobody he knows is just waiting eagerly to hear the Gospel if someone comes with it.

I had no answer...

Then today when I was reading Joel I realised that maybe being a worker was not such a joyous task after all, and the harvest is a less pleasant thing. The immediate context in Matthew does suggest that it is, but the wider Biblical context suggests otherwise:

For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: The daughter of Babylon is like a threshing floor at the time when it is trodden; yet a little while and the time of her harvest will come. (Jeremiah 51:33)

Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe. Go in, tread, for the winepress is full. The vats overflow, for their evil is great. (Joel 3:13)

For you also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed (Hosea 6:11a)

another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, 'Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.' So he who sat on the cloud swung his sickle across the earth, and the earth was reaped. (Revelation 14:15-16)

The unpardonable sin

I haven't heard a logically more feasible explanation of what the unpardonable sin is than Walther's. But I am not sure it quite fits the Biblical context.

[Matthew 12:30-32] states to begin with, that all blasphemy against the Father and the Son shall be forgiven [...] Now, it is certain that the Holy Spirit is not a more glorious and exalted person than the Father and the Son, but He is coequal with them. Accordingly, the meaning of this passage cannot be that the unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the person of the Holy Spirit; for blasphemy against the Father and the Son is exactly the same sin. The blasphemy to which our text refers is directed against the office, or operation, of the Holy Spirit; whoever spurns the office of the Holy Sirit, his sin cannot be forgiven. The office of the Holy Spirit is to call men to Christ and to keep them with Him [...] The sin is not unpardonable because of its magnitude - for the apostle, as we heard has distinctly declared: 'Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound' - but because the person committing this sin rejects the only means by which he can be brought to repentance, faith, and steadfastness in faith.

(pp.393-398, CFW Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel)

Anointing of Jesus

"I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." (Matthew 26:13)

I think I ought to do a list of episodes which appear in every single one of the four gospels. I don't think there can be many and arguably this one isn't one as the four accounts of Jesus being anointed do not all tally nicely and there seems to be more than one event described in the NT. But anyhow, I have always found this phrase in Matthew's account weird. But I think the sermon I heard at church on Sunday has hinted at a reason behind it.

Of course the anointing is to burial and that is explicit in 3 of the 4 accounts. However could it not also be an anointing of Jesus as King? It is like David and Saul but as different as he is different yet similar to them. It is an anointing to death, through which comes glory; an anointing by a lowly woman and not a mighty prophet or priest.

I don't know, I'm just musing.

The Transfiguration on the Mountain

One of the puzzles people consider when reading the account of the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-13) is what are Moses and Elijah doing there?

The most common answer is to represent the Law and the Prophets, or the Law and the Eschaton (Bock). However, while I think there is some truth in that I wonder whether the thing that elicits their mention is the setting on a "high mountain". Moses and Elijah to my poor memory were the only people to have ascended Mount Sinai/Horeb to talk with God.

All the classic marks of God's presence appear in the Gospel narrative (the cloud, the transfiguration like Moses experienced). The disciples were no doubt thinking at first that we would have a second law giving like Moses received, or perhaps a second message and commission like Elijah received. However all they get is 14 words, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him". God then promptly disappears. Except he hasn't. He is present with the disciples in Jesus. Jesus is not a second Moses, or a second Elijah, such that people looked forward to. He is someone quite different. He is not the messenger of the word, but the word himself. As Jesus himself says to the disciples coming down the mountain, he is not Elijah come again (John the Baptist is). He is the one that the second Elijah is not even worthy to untie the sandals of.

[Incidentally I wonder if Paul's comment in Galatians 1:17 "I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus" is meant to be a demonstration of how he received the gospel that he explains in 1:11-12 was "not man's gospel" because he "did not receive it from any man, nor was [he] taught it, but [he] received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." i.e. he went to Mount Sinai and was given his message by God in Christ (Note to self: it is probably time to read Tom Wright's essay on Galatians 1:17)]

Quotable: Leithart on the Beatitudes

Peter Leithart comments:

The Beatitudes are a description of Jesus. He is meek (11:29). He mourns for Jerusalem (26:36-46). He fulfills righteousness (3:15). He is merciful (9:27; 15:22). And for His trouble He is persecuted, reviled, slandered, and killed. Yet, He is blessed above all men, for in His resurrection He receives the kingdom, is comforted, inherits the earth, is filled, sees God, is declared Son of God.

Much as the Beatitudes are good news for us, they are good news only if we are in Jesus participating in his poverty as well as his glory.

To him be the glory.

Matthew 2

Matthew 2 tells the story of the visit of the wise men to Jesus, and Herod’s subsequent butchering of babies living in Bethlehem, just before which Mary, Joseph and Jesus escape to Egypt before returning at the end of the chapter.

Saved from what?

Matthew 1 sets the scene a little in mentioning the deportation of Judah to Babylon and never mentioning the return (supporting Wright et al who consider that the Jews considered themselves still in exile). Even if the focus on the exile wasn’t intended in chapter 1 it is more likely we are meant to notice how a line of kings has become in Joseph a line of carpenters while someone else must be ruling in Jerusalem. In Matthew 2 we discover who is ruling over God’s people. Herod is revealed as paranoid, megalomaniac, hypocritical, and most of all brutally sadistic in his killing of innocent children. The leaders of Israel are often mentioned in the bible as shepherds and as long ago as Isaiah and Jeremiah are recognised as failing in their role. But Isaiah and Jeremiah painfully look forward to when a good shepherd will come, who will love his sheep and also not lead them astray (cf. Jer 50:6).

Saved by whom?

Matthew 2 clearly knows who will effect salvation for Israel. We already know Jesus was of a line of kings, and born in Bethlehem. The prophecy from Micah that Matthew quotes makes it clear what this means:

‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

The shepherd is here and good rule is round the corner for it is none other than lowly Jesus who is Israel’s hope.

Saved how?

This will have to be further elaborated through the rest of the book but it is suggested already in chapter 2. The lowly birth and origin of Jesus has seemed bemusing so far but in chapter 2 it starts to make sense. Jesus will save his people by being a different kind of king to Herod. He will not rule with a rod of iron only (cf Psalm 2) but will identify with his people in a way never before seen. To save his people from exile and foreign rule he will subject himself to the same, initially under Herod, then under Egypt, and finally under Rome (in the person of Pilate). In fact it is only by suffering with them under God’s judgment that Jesus can absorb the judgment that they are suffering so that he can take them with him to the other side of death and exile. In the past God saved his son from slavery in Egypt, but the same is happening again in Jesus. But it is not just being repeated but being ‘fulfilled’. Jesus as God’s son, is representing God’s other son (his people Israel) in his life and ultimately his death. But he is brought back from Egypt, as he comes up from baptism, and recognised as God’s son, no mere slave but blessed. The resurrection is the same story multiplied by infinity and we can join the same story by being joined with him in baptism, and death (Rom 6:4).

But we must never forget that Jesus represents Israel not just by being just like one of us (‘a stranger on a bus…’) but also by being our king (our shepherd). The wise men knew what this meant for how they should approach them.

…and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Hope that made some sense!