The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30)

In Matthew 25:14-30 the Gospel writer records Jesus’ famous Parable of the Talents. Usually it’s for sermons on giving that pastors will preach this passage. At best they will couch it in an overall understanding of stewardship in which everything that God gives us (money, gifts, talents, possessions, time, and ourselves) is ultimately from him and that we are to use it as he wants us to. All well and good; few Christians disagree with this. At worst, this passage is used by preachers to scare parishioners and genuine believers into giving money to the church lest they are cast into utter darkness for not doing so (see verse 30). This, in of itself, is a horrid idea. “You may claim to be a follower of Jesus, but if you don’t tithe correctly, God is going to throw you into hell.” Nonsense! Now I do not believe that most pastors ever attempt to intentionally or maliciously frighten church-goers out of their money with threats of eternal punishment. The problem is that expositors of the Bible have grabbed hold of the wrong end of this stick about this passage and subsequent generations have simply inherited a poor interpretation. In a sense this parable is about stewardship, but it goes far deeper than simplistic sermons about money. And if we want to find the appropriate principle of which to apply to our faith we’re going to have to discover its original and immediate meaning.

The context of Jesus’ ministry was a first century Palestine that was anxiously waiting for God to return to them, specifically to the Temple. Thus the opening of the Gospel of Mark includes quotes from Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1:

“‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way’ – ‘a voice of one calling in the wilderness, “Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.”’” (Mark 1:1-3)

Both verses are about the return of God to his people after his apparent abandonment of the Temple during the Exile. The second part of Malachi 3:1 notes that “Yahweh will suddenly come to his Temple. The following verse is the warning “But who can endure the day of his coming?” (3:2) indicating that this return may not be a good for everyone. What is important for the Christian is that the New Testament authors apply these Old Testament prophecies about the return of God to the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.

Matthew has been touching upon this concept of God returning to his people throughout his work (see Matthew 2:18 and 13:1-23 for recently discussed examples). When Jesus triumphantly enters Jerusalem in Matthew 21:1-11, the author quotes Zechariah 9:9 and Isaiah 62:11 in verse 5. Both passages from which these two Old Testament verses are derived are about God returning to his people, returning to Jerusalem, returning to Zion. Again, Matthew is applying this to Jesus’ person and ministry.

This is immediately followed by Jesus’ so-called Cleansing of the Temple in which he actually passes judgment upon it, quoting Jeremiah 7:11. The passage from Jeremiah is about God preparing to bring down judgment upon the whole of Judah for its sins against God and man. This prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE. Now God has returned to his people in the person and work of Jesus, he has appeared in his Temple, and is warning that what happened in 587 BCE is about to happen again: the destruction of the Temple and the fall of Israel. This prophecy by Jesus was fulfilled by the Romans in 70 CE. “Who can endure the day of his coming?” Jesus himself weeps over what is about to befall Jerusalem (23:37-38).

So in Matthew 24, Jesus comes out from the Temple and his disciples mention it and its surrounding buildings, Jesus replies, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (verse 2). The disciples question Jesus about this and he launches into his discourse about what is going to happen during the great tribulation (66-73 CE) when Rome destroys Jerusalem and what it will actually be like when the Lord returns to his people. He explains this through both apocalyptic allusions and parables, including the Parable of the Fig Tree (24:32-41), the Parable of the Ten Virgins (25:1-13), and the Parable of the Talents (25:14-30).

The Parable of the Talents fits into this narrative because it is about God returning to his people. This is not a story about Jesus giving the Church tasks or stewardship then ascending to heaven only to return in 2000 plus years to see what we’ve done with it all. This story is about how God entrusted Israel with specific tasks and stewardship. They were to be the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13) and the light of the world (Matthew 5:14). They were entrusted with the Scriptures (Romans 3:2). God called Israel in order that he might bless the world through them (Genesis 22:18). Yet, many of them were bad stewards who failed in their tasks and blasphemed God’s name in the world (Romans 2:24; Ezekiel 36:20-22). According to Jesus, God is like a master who gave his servants tasks, went on a journey, and is now returning to those servants to see what they have done. To good stewards, he will give a just reward. Bad stewards will receive a just punishment. “Who can endure the day of his coming?”

So this parable is not specifically about Jesus returning at some future date to see how his followers in the Church handled the resources he gave them. God is not going to throw believers into outer darkness because they didn’t give ten percent of their income. There are other places in the Bible that talk about how God wants us to handle his money but this isn’t specifically one of them. This parable is about how God returned to Israel and dealt with his people who either wisely or foolishly handled their charge to be a blessing to the world. But is there a principle here that we can apply to our contemporary lives beyond the realization of how God once acted in history? I think there is.

We must first note that while Israel as a nation ultimately proved faithless in its task, Jesus as the Christ is the one Israelite who showed faithful obedience to his task for God even unto death (Philippians 2:5-11). He fulfilled Israel’s task to be a blessing to the world. The Church, as his body, made up of all his followers, has the primary task to be a part of his continuing work to be a blessing to the world. We accomplish this task by proclaiming the Gospel (Matthew 28:19-20; Luke 4:18-19). Followers of Jesus are stewards of the Gospel, lights of the world, and salt of the earth. Believers are entrusted with the Gospel and given the task of telling the world about it, and God expects us to do so. Now I do not believe that God will cast believers into eternal punishment if they do not do so. They simply do not bear fruit (Matthew 13:22). Nevertheless, in order to fulfill our purpose and complete our mission, we as individuals must not keep the Gospel for ourselves (Matthew 5:14-16). Churches must not become insular social gatherings of navel-gazers focused on building themselves up and sopping up the blessings of the Lord while not reaching out to the world with the Gospel. This is the point of the Parable of the Talents. It’s not a warning against being stingy with our money but warning against being stingy with the Gospel.

The Parable of the Sower (or Four Soils) (Matthew 13:1-23; Mark 4:1-20; Luke 8:1-15)

Part of Jesus’ vocation was a prophetic mission to warn the people of his generation that judgement was coming and that they needed to repent and follow him before it was too late. Far from being the fluffy bunny Jesus that wants to be your best friend, Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God was here, Yahweh was returning to Zion, give up your ways, embrace mine, or you will face the same disaster that your ancestors faced when they were driven into Exile by the Babylonians. This was a dire warning of an imminent threat and Jesus goes across the countryside proclaiming this word from God (Mark 1:15; Luke 5:1).

In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus is explaining the responses that result from this word of warning. This parable, in of itself, is both a story of warning and invitation. It is recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels. Matthew follows Mark very closely; Luke’s is a shorter, simplified version of Mark. The following is based upon the Markan version, but I will note differences in Luke where relevant. The quotations from the parable are immediately followed by the explanations.

“Some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate it up.”

“When they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them.”

The first group of people hear Jesus warnings about the Kingdom and the coming judgement but the message falls of deaf ears. Such a road would have been a well-worn path, hardened by the continuous comings and goings of traffic. Luke adds that these seeds are “trampled underfoot”. Whether from a heart hardened by the travails of the world or just a stubborn temperament that refuses to heed both warnings and supplication, the prophetic word of Jesus makes no impact and the person is harvested by the evil forces of this world and not by God. There is a certain point in which one must realize that the truth is not going to make it through the thick-headed (Matthew 7:6).

“Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.”

“In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away.”

Here we have a second group of people who hear Jesus’ preaching about the arrival of the Kingdom of God and the call to repentance to avoid destruction. Unlike the first group who rejects the call, this group receives the message with great religious joy. However, their reaction to the Kingdom is only temporary. They fall away. What causes this falling away? The words used here are affliction (thlipsis) and persecution (diōgmos). The word thlipsis can be translated as tribulation. It is the same word that Jesus uses to describe the Great Tribulation found in Mark 13:19 and 24 and Matthew 24:9, 21, and 29. When Jesus is describing in his famous Olivet Discourse the signs of the times that will accompany the Destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans it is this same tribulation (thlipsis).The judgement for which Jesus is warning will itself cause people to ultimately reject his message. Similarly, persecutions for following Jesus will also cause people to fall away. Fear of persecution, fear of distress, fear of very real violence … these are factors that Jesus predicts will cause some of the hearers of his generation to fail in their faith (Matthew 24:9-10). The reason is a lack of sufficient grounding in the Faith. Theirs is a merely surface faith. In today’s language we would refer to these individuals as “cultural Christians”, those who are only connected to Christ and the Church because it is cultural “the thing to do” and not because it has any transformative effect upon their lives. So when problems arise, they fall away (skandalizō).

Now the word for “fall away” used in Matthew and Mark is skandalizō. It can mean fall away, stumble, and offend (see Matthew 5:29-30; 11:6 18:6, 8-9; Mark 6:3; 9:42-47; Luke 17:2). The question here is in what sense is it being used in this parable. Are those who wither away being described as falling away from saving relationship with God in Christ or are they simply stumbling as we all do and can stand themselves back up to resume their walk? Context would suggest that falling away is the better interpretation. The progression from non-responders to full harvest suggests such a step. Also, the imagery of withering plants seems a harsher reaction than simply not bearing fruit from the following soil. Otherwise, there is not much difference between soils two and three. In Luke’s account of the parable, he instead uses the word aphīstēmī which means “depart”, “draw away”, “withdrawal”, and “leaving”. This word definitely conveys the sense of complete falling away from a saving relationship with God in Christ (cf. Luke 13:27; Hebrews 3:12). Perhaps Luke wanted to dispel any ambiguity that the word skandalizō might bring.

“Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop.”

“And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.”

The third group of hearers, unlike the previous, never appear to lose their salvation status. This group has heard Jesus’ prophetic message about the Kingdom of God and the warning of imminent judgement and they stay somewhat firm in the faith despite the upcoming tribulation and persecution. All good. However, where this particular group is found lacking is ever doing anything with their faith. They remain passive, unproductive hearers of the word, but not doers (cf. James 1:22). While Jesus called the people of his generation out of their bondage to sin, he did so in order that they might fulfill their purpose in this world. Instead, this particular group of hearers uses their freedom to pursue their own ends. Instead, these individuals are “choked” by the worries, riches, and pleasures of life. The word for “worries” here is merimna. It’s better translated as “anxiety”. I’ve commented upon this word before:

“[Jesus] says that there are those who hear the good news, have the foundation, but do not bear the true results of their faith because they are choked by the world. Jesus used the analogy of thorns that choke a plant, preventing it from bearing fruit. The world is constantly producing frustrations and distractions that inauthenticate our lives and prevent us from living out our faith fully. Merimna is used in Luke 21:34 when Jesus warned the people not to be distracted from the coming destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. Paul uses the term in 2 Corinthians 11:28 when describing the troubles and burdens he faced as an apostle. Along with the beatings, shipwrecks, pains, hunger, thirst, and other sufferings he experienced that sought to prevent him from preaching the gospel, Paul adds the anxiety that comes upon him ministering to the churches. Like his other sufferings, this anxiety sought to distract and prevent his Kingdom work. Peter uses merimna in his first letter when talking about suffering and submission (5:7). He quotes Psalm 55:22, saying, ‘Give all your anxiety to [God] for he looks after you.’ Essentially, this is the same teaching of Jesus when he tells his disciples to avoid fear but have faith in God who looks after you (Matthew 10:28-31).”

Note the connection with the coming destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in Luke 21:34.

Along with riches (ploutos) and pleasures (hēdonē), these three factors are given as examples of the things that can choke, cripple, and stagnate the life of a follower of Jesus. These are distractions that take time, attention, energy, resources, and priorities away from the purposes for which a follower of Jesus was saved.

“Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.”

“And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.”

The final hearers are those who accept the message that Jesus proclaims about the Kingdom and the coming warnings. They neither fall away nor become distracted by the age in which they live. These followers produce fruit. These yield a crop. Note that the harvest is plentiful.

Now note that the parable and its explanation is separated in all three accounts by a commentary on the importance of seeing and hearing the word of Jesus (Matthew 13:10-16; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:9-10). In the parable, the stress is upon man’s responsibility to hear the proclamation and behave accordingly (see Matthew 13:9 and Luke 8:21). And in all three commentaries, Jesus quotes from Isaiah 6:9-10: “Keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking, but do not understand.” This is a part of the prophet Isaiah’s commission to go preach repentance to God’s unrepentant people because destruction by Babylon is approaching. A related line is found in Jeremiah 5:21 also about the coming judgment. Again, a comparison is being made between Jesus’ warnings about the coming destruction by Rome and the previous destruction by Babylon. History is repeating itself. The prophetic word is one again going forth to warn about judgment, and both times the warnings are being met with rejection.

However, along with this rejection, there is an accompanying acceptance. While Israel will face destruction, a remnant will produce a harvest. And the eventual harvest will be great. The party will go on ahead as planned, but the original guests will not be there (Matthew 22:1-14; Luke 14:15-24). While the faithless will be pushed into exile, the faithful will be called out into freedom. This parable recalls the Isaiah 55:10-13. A poem for the Israelites in Babylon, promising an end to Exile and a glorious future with God.

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. For you will go out with joy and be led forth with peace; the mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands. Instead of the thorn bush the cypress will come up, and instead of the nettle the myrtle will come up, and it will be a memorial to the Lord, for an everlasting sign which will not be cut off.”

Seed to the sower. Words from God’s mouth. An end to the thorns. Jesus is drawing upon Isaiah both in his warnings and in his invitation to the people of his generation. Lack of repentance will end in destruction as it did once before; repentance will lead to salvation and a glorious future. This is a reverse of the curse of the Fall of Man that brought thorns and thistles to the ground frustrating human’s ability to work the earth (Genesis 3:18).

Though Jesus intended this parable as a description of his generation and the specific situation in which they found themselves, the principles and practices are easily applied to those who hear the Gospel today. General experience in the ministry bears this out. Human nature does not radically change. There will always be those who initially reject, those who eventually reject, those who do nothing with their faith, and those who do prosper, with varying degrees of success (Matthew 13:23; Mark 4:20). The questions we must continue ask ourselves is where we fit within this parable?

Notes on the Cuff & Other Stories by Mikhail Bulgakov

Last night I read Notes on the Cuff & Other Stories by Mikhail Bulgakov. I’ve been a big fan of Bulgakov for many years. He is one of my top 20 favorite modern authors. He is well known for his satirical masterpiece The Master & Margarita and his novella Heart of a Dog. Bulgakov was a Christian who wrote during the early Soviet period. He was quite critical of what he saw as both the inherent evil and absurdity of socialism. Because of this, much of his work was banned during his lifetime though he himself avoided the gulag. Indeed, of all the short stories in Notes on the Cuff & Other Stories, only “Notes on the Cuff” was ever originally published, and even then with severe edits by the censors.

The title story is quite good. Late last year I read Bulgakov’s Black Snow (also published as A Dead Man's Memoir and A Theatrical Novel) which appears to be the sequel to “Notes on the Cuff”. Both seem to be about a struggling writer attempting to survive and create a career amidst the Muscavite literati of Soviet Russia. Both works are heavily autobiographical though the narrator struggles more than Bulgakov did and is far less successful. But while Black Snow is a more continuous narrative and mostly a satire specifically about the Soviet theatre system, “Notes on the Cuff” jumps around to different parts of Soviet literature: novelists, poets, playwrights, publishers, producers, etc. The story also has several sections where up-and-coming writers talk (often hilariously) about the great Russian writers of the past (Pushkin, Tolstoy, Gogol, etc.). If you like a writer writing about writers talking about writers, this is quite fun. And, again, very humorous.

This is where Bulgakov’s extraordinary gift comes in. While he could create great historical dramas (see The White Guard), comedy and satire was what distinguished him from all his contemporaries. Bulgakov had the ability to observe a situation of which everyone else was apparently taking seriously, see its absolute absurdity, and then spin the whole episode into literary gold. Obviously, such situations abound in socialism. Leaders would make foolish decisions causing chaos and disaster while most everyone else spoke highly of the decision and how great the result actually was, usually out of fear. Walter Wink designated such a system “delusion and domination”, while Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn dubbed it the “great lie”. Bulgakov saw the absurdity of the lie and the pretentions of those who went along with it. He responded by highlighting the absurdity and becoming absurd himself. So the devil and his entrourage visits fervently atheistic Soviet Union, a stray dog takes human form, and enormous quantity of large and overly aggressive snakes fight the Red Army. In Notes on the Cuff, Bulgakov is not quite at the level of magical realism for which he would become famous. However, the critique of the absurd and the willful delusion of the masses is already present. This is early Bulgakov.

I recommend this book and others by the author (particularly The Master & Margarita and Heart of a Dog). This particular book is a quick and easy read. Again, “Notes on the Cuff” is very good. “The Red Crown” and “The Komarov Case” are two other short stories in this collection that are choice reads.

Enter a Free Man, by Tom Stoppard

I’m a huge Tom Stoppard fan and have been since high school. He never fails to disappoint. A number of years ago I stumbled upon a used copy of one of the Stoppard works I had not read, Enter a Free Man. This is a reworked play from 1968 based upon Stoppard’s earlier A Walk on Water (1960). I purchased it years ago but never got around to reading it. I usually would read the first couple of pages and then abandon it altogether. That happened at least twice. Not sure why. Last night I ended up reading the entire play in one sitting after having finished The Aeneid. Remarkably I found it to be quick and easy read.

The story is about George Riley, a perpetually unemployed and failed inventor living with his wife and his 19-year old daughter, the latter who supports the family with her income. Every Saturday George leaves home (“This time for good!”), swearing never to return, to go down to the pub where he entertains the denizens with his half-truth, half-imaginary exploits and new, glorious invention. Wealth and success are always just around the corner. There is a tinge of Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman in this.

And while the pub scenes are classic 1960s-1970s Stoppard with their kaleidoscope of wit, word play, humor, and farce, the family scenes are much more dramedy and resemble similar stylistic approaches that Stoppard would embrace fully in 1982’s The Real Thing and after. This is sort of pleasantly surprising to me. He always had it in him to do dramedy, he just preferred mostly comedy during his early period.

I also note in this play a hint of the undercurrent of cyclical plots that Stoppard employed in his previous Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (1966) and his next The Real Inspector Hound (1968). In this there is the suggestion that the story continued after the curtain closes and that the characters in the play continue the same pattern of plot and behavior indefinitely. George Riley will always leave home in frustration, he will always threaten to never come back, he will always regale his pub retinue, he will always come home that night, and he will always be an unemployed, failed inventor.

In this particular cycle, George believes he has found a great new idea in reusable envelopes. He continues to put his family under pressure just as his daughter has begun searching for her own independence in the form of men. She wants to leave home but feels obligated to stay and support her family. Thus she continues to encourage and frustratingly ridicule George into finding a job or at least going on unemployment. This is the cause of much fighting and George’s desire to leave home for good. While George threatens to leave and Linda tries, the play concludes with everyone in the same position in which they had begun the story. Naturally and expectedly, the reusable envelope idea fails. However, the touching, final moments of the play show George promising to seek work the next morning, just as one of his latest inventions (in-door rain for the naturally watering of household plants) looks like it has worked … only to exhibit it’s fatal flaw: how do you turn it off if it doesn’t stop raining? A humorously cute ending to a very well-crafted dramedy.

The Aeneid by Virgil (verse translation by Rolfe Humphries)

Last night I finally finished re-reading The Aeneid by Virgil (verse translation by Rolfe Humphries). I purchased my copy back in college to help me translate some passages when I was studying Latin. From the looks of a few notations, I also read books V-VI around ten years ago. About three years ago I read N.T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God. In that book Wright notes that the Bible offers a teleological view of history that argues all of history has been building up to the coming of Jesus the Christ. He further states that the only other ancient literary work that advances anything close to such a history is The Aeneid. In this 12-book epic poem in dactylic hexameter, Virgil constructs a narrative which argues that history from the Fall of Troy through the victorious war upon the Latins and beyond culminates in the reign of Augustus Caesar. Indeed, parts of the work is open propaganda giving mythic legitimization to the rule of Julius Caesar and, by extension, to his adopted son Augustus. All well and good. Modern distaste for propaganda should not cause us to shrink back from and appreciate its ancient examples. As my New Testament professor once said, “Is not the New Testament a collection of propaganda pieces promoting God, Jesus, and the Gospel?” So some two years ago I dusted off my personal copy of the book to see how another ancient work works their teleological propaganda.

Here is a good example. In Book VI, Aeneas goes down to the Underworld and hears the following prophecy from his dead father, Anchises:

“Turn your two eyes

 This way and see this people, your own Romans.

 Here is Caesar, and all the line of Iulus,

 All who shall one day pass under the dome

 Of the great sky: this is the man, this one,

 Of whom so often you have heard the promise,

Caesar Augustus son of the deified,

 Who shall bring once again an Age of Gold

 To Latium, to the land where Saturn reigned

 In early times.”

Pretty grand stuff. Interestingly, Aeneas's son, Ascanius (also called Illus from Illium, meaning Troy) has his named changed to Iulus to correspond to the family line of Julius Caesar. Heavy stuff that.

The book as a whole is magnificent on every level. The poetry, the metaphor, the plot, the wide canvas, the characters, the battles scenes, all of it comes together perfectly. After recently reading the somewhat dull epic poem Troilus and Criseyde by Chaucer, the last half of this book was refreshing and vitalic. You quickly understand why Dante held Virgil in such high regard. Oddly enough, one notices that the antagonists in the book (such as Dido, Turnus, and Camilla) are more interesting characters than the protagonists like Aeneas. Very Shakespearean that.

Dwelling Places in “My Father’s House”

“‘In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.’” (John 14:2-4)

A very famous passage in the Gospel of John. Traditionally these verses have been interpreted as referring to heaven and that Jesus will soon be departing there. However, a closer examination of the passage reveals otherwise. The phrase “my Father’s house” usually refers to the Temple in Jerusalem. In John 2:16, when Jesus cleanses the Temple, he says, “’Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a place of business.’” Here in John the phrase “my Father’s House” specifically refers to the Temple of God. But in 14:2, Jesus says that there are many “dwelling places” (monā) in this house and that Jesus is going to prepare a place for his disciples. Given that the Temple in Jerusalem could not hold all of Jesus’ disciples (beyond the 12) and that it seems odd that Jesus would prepare a place for them there (which he did not), it seems that a less than literal interpretation of the Temple is warranted. Such a symbolic and metaphorical understanding is in keeping with John’s method in his Gospel (e.g., 6:35; 8:12; 10:7; 15:1). So what then is this Temple, this Father’s House to which Jesus is referring? The answer becomes clearer when we look at how Jesus metaphorically uses the Temple, his Father’s House earlier in John 2:20-22.

“The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.”

Here John is stating that Jesus was referring to his own body as a temple that would be crucified and resurrected. This is not an isolated metaphor. In John’s other book, Revelation, he again uses the imagery of the Temple in reference to Jesus and to God. “I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple” (21:22). The Lamb, of course, is Jesus. John often associates Jesus with a Lamb in reference to his crucifixion (Revelation 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11). In the Gospel, Jesus is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world (1:29, 36).

So in John 2, “My Father’s House” is the Temple which is a metaphor for the body of Jesus, with reference to the crucifixion. And preceding the reference to the My Father’s House/Temple in 14:2, we get the following exchange in 13:36-38:

“Simon Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, where are You going?’ Jesus answered, ‘Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later.’ Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, why can I not follow You right now? I will lay down my life for You.’ Jesus answered, ‘Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.’”

This dialogue takes place at the Last Supper, just prior to Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion. Jesus is about to go to the cross and is telling the disciples that where he is going they cannot follow. Peter, not understanding that Jesus is referring to the cross, proclaims that he would be willing to die for Jesus. Jesus replies that Peter will not lay down his life to face death for the cause of Christ at this time, but he and the other disciples will at some point (v. 36).

So when in 14:2-3, when Jesus says he is going to prepare a place for his followers, he is referring to his work on the cross. His work on the cross, his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection enable him to prepare a place for his followers in him. Here we get into some deep theology about the corporate nature of Christ, in which the Messiah, the Christ, is representative of all of God’s people, so that one can even state that what one does to a follower is equated to Christ himself (see Matthew 25:34-40 for one example). Thus we have the voluminous references to people being “in Christ” throughout the New Testament (Romans 8:2, 39; 12:5; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 30; 15:18, 22; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:4; 3:28; 6:15; Ephesians 1:3, 10, 12, 20). Indeed, the followers of Jesus, the Church itself, is frequently called the “body of Christ” (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 3:6; 5:23; Colossians 1:18, 24). Not only that, Christian believers as a group are referred to as a Temple (1 Corinthians 3:16, 17; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21). To put this altogether: believers are in Christ, they are the body of Christ, they are a Temple, Jesus is a Temple, and believers are a part of that Temple body.

Therefore, Jesus’ work on the cross prepares a place in the Father’s House with many dwelling-places (monā) for believers in him (see also Revelation 3:12). But notice 14:23: “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode (monā) with him.” So not only do we have a dwelling place with Jesus, but Jesus and God have a dwelling place with us. Notice it is both God and Jesus. This fits within one of the arguments John is making: Jesus is in God the Father, and God the Father is within Jesus (14:7, 9-11). They are one (10:30). We already noted that in Revelation 21:22 that both God and Jesus are the Temple. John has Jesus wrap up this entire idea in John 14:20: “I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.”

So when Jesus indicates that his crucifixion is preparing a place in the Father’s House with many dwelling-places (monā), he is stating that his work on the cross bring about a new relationship between God the Father, himself, and his followers. This is not a relationship that will exist at some future date in heaven, but a relationship that a person can have now if he has a relationship with Jesus and God. In chapter 15, Jesus says, “Abide (menō) in Me, and I in you” (v. 4), “he who abides (menō) in Me and I in him” (v. 5), and “If you abide (menō) in Me, and My words abide (menō) in you” (v. 7). The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus has accomplished this.