The Messianic Secret and the Enthronement of Christ

I was reading the autobiography of Albert Schweitzer last week, Out of My Life and Thought. In it Schweitzer talks about the historical issue known as the “Messianic Secret”. This refers to the motif in the synoptic Gospels, particular the Gospel of Mark, in which Jesus is portrayed as commanding his disciples to keep silent about his identity as the Messiah, or Christ. The theory originally posited by William Wrede in 1901 was that this theme was an invention of Gospel writers to cover up for the fact that Jesus really never claimed to be the Christ. Wrede’s theory was roundly criticized early on by a variety of scholars (both liberal and conservative) but picked up some popularity in the middle of the 20^th century. Eventually the idea that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah/Christ fell out of favor. There were some scholarly, historical, and logical reasons why this theory does not hold water, and Schweitzer was one of the early critics.

Yet, the synoptic Gospels do have several episodes in which Jesus tells individuals to keep his Messianic identity secret (Matthew 16:20; 12:16; Mark 1:24-25, 34; 3:12; 8:30; Luke 4:41; 9:21). Indeed, Jesus doesn’t openly refer to himself as the Christ, preferring to use the terms prophet (Matthew 13:57; Mark 6:4) and Son of Man (Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 11:19; Mark 2:10; 8:31; 9:9; Luke 9:44; 11:30; 12:40 13:33).

The most common explanation for the “Messianic Secret” is that Jesus wanted to avoid the contemporary misconception that the Messiah would be a strictly political figure that would fully institute Torah as popularly understood and defeat Israel’s enemies, namely the Romans. In this view, Jesus could establish his own ethic and correct theology without the political baggage that the title brought. I definitely think there is some truth to this. I also think that Jesus feared that any announcement by him of his Messianic identity might invite the people to make him king by a means other than by God’s plan (John 6:15). Again, I think these are both good secondary reasons, but I believe there was a primary reason.

Schweitzer argued that Jesus refrained from publicly identifying himself as the Messiah was because Jesus didn’t officially become King (the Messiah or Christ) until he sat on his throne which was the cross. I had never heard this theory before, but I do think that it is correct based on several other passages within the Gospels. In one story, the mother of James and John requests that her sons sit on either side of Jesus (presumably as he is enthroned) when his kingdom is inaugurated.

“And He said to her, ‘What do you wish?’ She said to Him, ‘Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.’ But Jesus answered, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?’”  (Matthew 20:21-22; cf. Mark 10:33-38)

The cup refers to his crucifixion (Matthew 26:42; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42). Jesus warns that the means of him coming into his kingdom is through the death of the crucifixion. For them to be on his left and right as he sits on his throne would be to suffer the same death (just like the two thieves).

In the most obvious story, Jesus is “coronated” by the Romans.

“Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole Roman cohort around Him. They stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him. And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they knelt down before Him and mocked Him, saying, ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ They spat on Him, and took the reed and began to beat Him on the head. After they had mocked Him, they took the scarlet robe off Him and put His own garments back on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him” (Matthew 27:27-31; cf. Mark 15:16-20; John 19:1-5).

Intended by the Romans to be a macabre, mocking parody of the charge against Jesus, the soldiers dress him up as a king with robe, staff, and crown. They then put him on the cross and hang a sign above his head, “This is the king of the Jews” (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19). In the most startling, scandalous, ironic event in human history, Jesus becomes King of the Jews and king of the world by being humiliated and executed on a Roman cross. This is his coronation and enthronement. This is how his kingdom arrives.

Yet, if Jesus did not officially become the Messiah/Christ/King until his crucifixion on the cross, why does he seem to already acknowledge his Messiahship but only ask that it be kept silent? I think the answer comes in another story.

“At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, ‘Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.’ But He said to them, ‘Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, “I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’” (Matthew 12:1-8; cf. Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5).

This episode is followed by another warning by Jesus not to make known who he is (Matthew 12:16; Mark 3:12).

This particular story has been popularly interpreted as Jesus’ denunciation of tradition in the face of human need or even a renunciation of the Law in favor of grace. While there may be some surface truth to the former in terms of some indirect application, as with many of Jesus’ teachings and parables there is a deeper level of meaning that was Jesus’ essential point upon which all principled application must be based.

The story that Jesus cites here about David eating the consecrated bread is from 1 Samuel 21:1-15. This is one of the stories about how God was working through history to bring his anointed one, David, to the throne. David here is on the run from King Saul. He has already been appointed by God and anointed king over Israel (1 Samuel 18:1-14), but, since Saul is still king, it would be a while before he actually became the official king after the death of Saul (2 Samuel 2:1-7). In the meantime, David is the true king, but a king in exile, on the run from a jealous Saul, and he won’t ascend the throne and be officially recognized for a time.

In the same way, at this point in the story, Jesus has already been ordained by God (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22) and is the true King of Israel, yet he has yet to be recognized as such and ascend the throne. The currently recognized king is a Herod who seeks to kill Jesus (Matthew 2:16; Luke 13:31). When Jesus was pointing to the example of David in his explanation of why he could break the Sabbath rules he was not simply citing precedent but pointing to his identity: an anointed king waiting to be coronated. It his identity as Messiah which makes him Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5).

Therefore, I think all these passages and stories confirm Schweitzer’s theory that the reason for the Messianic Secret was that Jesus’ Messiaship did not officially begin until he was crucified. But as stated above, this is the shocking and completely unexpected means by which Jesus becomes king. This method is counter-intuitive and counter-cultural. Instead of seizing power and bullying his way to the top, Jesus becomes a servant in order to be exalted (Philippians 2:5-11).This is why we read the first shall be last and the last shall be first (Matthew 20:16). This is why Christian leadership is about servant leadership (Luke 22:25-26). This is why being a pastor is about equipping other believers (Ephesians 4:11-12). While the world may be run by the aggressive use of force and governments have a monopoly on violence (see Romans 13:1-3), the Christian (both laity and minister) must pursue the Kingdom of God through humbleness, selflessness, submission, and sacrifice (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23).

The Fundamental Theology of Creativity in Ministry

I wanted to write an article about how going deeper into theology enables one to go higher into ministry. This is the result.

In 1962, Italian director Federico Fellini decided to make a film about the inability of a filmmaker to make a film. The film that both Fellini and his semi-fictional filmmaker were un/able to make was the film both were working on: 8 ½. Fellini’s course in making this film was to convey the three levels on which the human minds live: the past, the present, and the conditional - the realm of the imagination. He proceeded on the theory that if we live in our conscious, the more we can go down into our unconscious, the more we can go up in our over-conscious. Thus, in the film, the deeper both Fellini and the filmmaker go into their memory, the higher they go into their imagination. It is the process of going deeper into the memory/unconscious that enables them to realize the potential to achieve high imaginative art. And part of this process is the submission of the self to that deeper reality, the coming to terms with those past events that have such a profound effect upon personal life.

I was reminded of this film when I began thinking about creativity in ministry. Because humans are created in the image of God, we’ve also been given the ability to create. It is interesting that the creation story in Genesis 1 consists of God creating structures on the earth and then filling them. Humans are then created and given the task of filling the earth and subduing it (1:28), of cultivating the earth (2:15). God gives a sense of his own creativity to humans. The problem comes, of course, when humans sin and fall from their proper position by attempting to go beyond their limits. Their ability to create is frustrated from a cursed earth producing thorns and thistles (3:17-19; also 3:16).

In his book, The Nature and Destiny of Man, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, wrestled with the subject of anxiety and how it creates the occasion of sin, basing much of his work on Soren Kierkegaard’s Concept of Anxiety. He describes how humans are created beings and thus are limited, finite, and incapable of knowing everything and of doing everything (knowledge and creativity). Yet because humans are created in the image of God, they are capable of envisioning the possibility of knowing and doing everything, of imagining what they might be but are not. A human has a mind that can transcend itself (since he can make his own thoughts the object of contemplation) and thus he has tremendous creative and imaginative powers to create by thinking beyond the limits of his own finitude. Yet this freedom to think beyond the limits of one’s finitude can produce dread or anxiety within the human consciousness. We realize we are free but bound. We imagine life beyond the contours of our finitude and that thought produces the temptation to exercise our freedom in an attempt to go beyond that limit. Anxiety then is the state of any human standing in the situation of freedom and finitude. This anxiety is not sin itself, but it can be the occasion of sin. There is always that chance that one will freely choose not to attempt to go beyond the limit. But people attempt to relieve the anxiety either by faith or sin. (Let me be clear: I’m using anxiety in the theological/philosophical sense, not in the medical.)

When one chooses to relieve the anxiety by acting beyond his limit that is the sin of pride, and from pride flows every other sin. But this manifestation of pride in the attempt to overcome the tension between freedom and finitude takes two forms. The first is to deny one’s finitude by seeking domination, either over others or one’s environment. This is the temptation to seek power and control in order to relieve anxiety and fear. The second is the attempt to relieve the tension between freedom and finitude by denying one’s freedom. This involves losing oneself in the gratification of base self in some aspect of the world’s vitalities: food, money, sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. Here the sin is sensuality, living merely in terms of some particular impulses of one’s own nature. This is the temptation to seek pleasure and sensuality in order to relieve anxiety and fear. In both forms, pride is the governing factor: the selfish pride to dominate and the selfish pride to seek base gratification. Ironically, these methods create further anxiety and fear due to their being inauthentic measures. Thus, we have in the Bible numerous warnings about anxiety and worry (Psalm 55:22; Matthew 6:25-34; 13:18-22; Mark 4:14-20; Luke 8:11-15; 10:38-42; 12:11-26; 21:34; 2 Corinthians 11:28; 1 Peter 5:7). Thus, we have the numerous warnings and condemnations concerning pride (Lev. 26:9; Job 33:7; Psalm 10:2; 36:11; 59:12; 75:5; Proverbs 8:13; 11:2; 16:18; 21:24; 29:23; Isaiah 2:17; 23:9; Mark 7:2; 2 Corinthians 5:12; 1 John 2:16). Thus, we have this pattern in the story of Adam and Eve. They were created in the image of God but were confronted with the concept of going beyond their limits to become more like God (Genesis 3).

When one choose to relieve the anxiety by submitting to God and to the limits he has placed upon creation, that is faith, specifically faithful, trustful obedience. Thus we have the example of Jesus:

“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11)

Jesus modeled the proper role that humans are to take within their limits: humbleness, obedience, selflessness, submission. But what is the result of such selflessness? Exaltation. This is one of the supreme ironies about life. When individuals attempt to exalt themselves, they fall. When they humble themselves, God exalts them. It is a part of God’s and Jesus’ counterintuitive approach to reality that the meek and humble, those that put God and others before self that are ultimately exalted. This is why we read the first shall be last and the last shall be first (Matthew 20:16). This is why Christian leadership is about servant leadership (Luke 22:25-26). This is why being a pastor is about equipping other believers (Ephesians 4:11-12). Ministry is about equipping others, not using others to equip ourselves.

This submission extends into the realm of learning and knowledge. Socrates once stated that wisdom and knowledge consist in knowing that you know nothing. Nicholas of Cusa wrote in his De docta ignorantia that learning itself (but specifically knowledge about God) begins when we one learns he is ultimately ignorant. It is through the humbling submission and realization that God is infinite and we are finite that real learning begins. The Bible puts it this way: The beginning of wisdom is fear (submitting reverence) to the Lord (Proverbs 9:10). Pride is the greatest impediment to acquisition of knowledge. Indeed, it brings both ignorance and a stubborn refusal to accept truth.

We must recognize, accept, and remain within our God-ordained limits as finite creatures. Whatever fear and anxiety we face in life with our ability to freely choose, we can relieve that fear and anxiety by faithful obedience to God. This will help us both avoid and remove the primary sin of pride from which comes the temptations to dominate others and/or lead lives of reckless abandon. The process of selfless submission to God involves going deeper into our finite selves (both conscious and unconscious) by recognizing sin, repenting, recognizing and removing biases, and understanding who we are both in relation to ourselves and to God and others. It also involves submitting ourselves to the recognition of our own finite knowledge. Knowing that one knows nothing allows one to really learn and then go deeper into knowledge by removing the self-imposed limitations we put on our thinking (again, both conscious and unconscious). The irony is that the attempt to go beyond our God-ordained limitations succeeds only in self-imposing limitations that bring us lower than what God has ordained. This process of submission to God, of going deeper into his knowledge, of removing the self-imposed limitations of our lives, yet staying within the faithful limitations that define us as creatures created in the image of God, enables us to unleash the God-given creativity that we were designed to produce.

THIS is when creative ministry really begins to happen. THIS is why pastors need to preach on repentance and deeper theology and not simply on fluffy bunnies that makes us feel good. THIS is why churches need small groups that delve deep into the Scripture, hold individuals morally accountable, and encourage individuals to use their talents, gifts, and creativity for God. THIS is why ministers need to acknowledge their limited knowledge and both delve deeper into Scripture and into ministry praxis in order to advance the Kingdom of God. THIS is why I’ve always attempted to go deeper into theology in order to better advance the ministries of which I have stewarded.

When we do submit ourselves to God, going deeper into repentance and knowledge, we relieve anxiety, break self-imposed limitations, and are enabled to attain our God-given creativity for greater ministry success. But if we instead attempt to go beyond our limits in the selfish pride of dominating others and of acquiring vitalities (money, favor, etc.), we create greater anxiety, bind ourselves with limitations, and severely restrict our knowledge and ability to do ministry. In this case, our ministry dries up.

The Authorship of 2 Thessalonians

Oddly enough, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 was in the news today. I saw one journalist who frequently claims to have significant Bible knowledge (but keeps getting some of the basics wrong) state that this epistle was a forgery and not actually written by Paul. I thought I would respond.

The idea that Paul is not the author of 2 Thessalonians is largely a holdover from the 19^th century when the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation was in its infancy and the authorship of all of the books of the Bible was up for grabs. Greater understanding of the texts, their theology, and a more thorough understanding of the use of the historical-critical method has substantiated most of the traditional claims of Pauline authorship. 2 Thessalonians is still debated. While earlier generations focused on the eschatological differences between it and 1 Thessalonians, a greater realization that such differences were not in conflict has led to a more recent focus on the stylistic differences between it and 1 Thessalonians as the reason to doubt Pauline authorship. I’ve not found the arguments against Pauline authorship convincing, and I would like to give the reasons why.

-          Doubts about authorship are only based on the differences of style between it and 1 Thessalonians. If all we had was the second letter no one would doubt its authorship. Yet, no one doubts the Pauline authorship of 1 Thessalonians even though it is stylistically different from Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians, letters which no one doubts are Pauline, too.

-          The Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians is well attested in the early Church. No one doubted its authenticity until recently.

-          The letter claims to be from Paul (1:1; 3:1).

-          Those who reject Pauline authorship state that 2 Thessalonians was written just after Paul’s death. 1 Thessalonians is widely regarded as being the first Pauline letter. This would mean that 2 Thessalonians was written about 25 years after 1 Thessalonians. Yet, if the second letter is a forgery, the author apparently was attempting to create a letter for the era 1 Thessalonians (1:1) a quarter of a century later. This in of itself is odd. Why not just create a brand new letter? Why introduce a letter that the Thessalonians are supposed to believe was lost for 25 years? And then why make references to personal encounters/information concerning the readers (2:5, 15; 3:1, 6-10) and respond to the specific situation of his readers (1:4; 2:2, 3:11) when the persons and situation would have undoubtedly changed.

-          While there were definitely forged documents circulating within the early church (particularly in later centuries) there distinguishing characteristic was that they were attempting to introduce heresies into the Church. There is nothing like that in 2 Thessalonians. Indeed, the author is encouraging his readers to continue to follow established Pauline teaching (3:1, 6).

-          While there are differences in style between it and 1 Thessalonians, they are far more alike than they are different. Indeed, those who doubt Pauline authorship state that the forger was imitating Paul’s style.

-          There are several stylistic and theological similarities between 2 Thessalonians and other Pauline letters. Here are a just a few: 2:10-12 (Romans 1:26-28), 3:8 (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:15-18), 3:9 (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1), 3:14 (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:11), 3:17 (cf. Colossians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 16:21), and 3:18 (cf. Philippians 4:23; Galatians 6:18; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Romans 16:20).

It’s generally guarded that those who favor the non-Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians have the larger burden to bear to make their case. The above reasons are why I favor Pauline authorship.

Philosophy of Ministry

If I had to express my philosophy of ministry, it would be based upon the following two Bible references:

“And He said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called “Benefactors.” But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.’” (Luke 22:25-26)

“And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:11-12)

Both of passages express the Biblical concept of servant leadership. This concept is the practical application for the Church of Jesus’ readjustment of power structures (Matthew 5:3-10; 20:16; Luke 4:18-19; 1 Peter 5:1-3) and which he himself embodied (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:1-7; Philippians 2:7). While leadership in the world works in a top-down arrangement in which the leader exercises authority over others and they serve his wishes, the model Jesus taught for the Church was the reversal of this. In the Church the leader is there to serve those “under” him, to sacrifice himself for those with whom he serves.

God has given the people of the Church the gifts, talents, and abilities to fulfill the task and the purposes that he gives them. It is up to the minister/pastor to support those volunteers in their service, giving them the resources, aid, encouragement, that they need to be the best servants of God as possible. Volunteers are not there to support the minister; the minister is there to support the volunteers. It is through that support that God accomplishes his Kingdom goals.

A Response to the Use of "Christian" as an Adjective

Don’t Use ‘Christian’ as an Adjective Around Me Anymore

The person who wrote this article is not a Christian. Based upon this piece she appears to not have a very deep understanding of the Christian Faith. Here she is criticizing the use of “Christian” as an adjective (and as a noun) because it is used by Christians (and others) as a synonym for decent, humane, caring behavior. This suggests to her that the users are either consciously or unconsciously continuing the stereotype that other religions are not caring. The reason people tend to use that term as an adjective is because it points back to Jesus the Christ  as the gauge by which the Christian life should be measured. Jesus was decent, humane, and caring. But this is only her surface complaint. Delve deeper and her real complaint is that Christians make the extraordinary claim that the one creator God is saving the world exclusively through the figure of Jesus the Christ and that any faith that does not acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior is illegitimate. The surface use of “Christian” as an adjective for caring is just an outgrowth of this deeper claim.


Not that the author is completely for the use of Christian as a noun either. She appears to endorse the idea that “labeling all Protestants and Catholics as Christians was and is used politically to combat Roe vs Wade.” This claim is so laughably ignorant that it should remove all her credibility that she has anything either insightful or relevant to say about the term “Christian”. It’s like saying that labeling all Sunnis and Shias as Muslim was used politically to combat the oil crisis of the 1970s. Even a cursory understanding of Christianity could tell one that the first use of the label Christian comes from Antioch nearly 2000 years ago (Acts 11:26) and predates the Roman Catholic-Protestant divide by some 1500 years. But, again, this is only her surface complaint. Delve deeper and her real complaint is that Christianity (including both Protestant and Roman Catholic) makes extraordinary claims about the dignity and worth of humanity based upon it having been made in the image of God.


On a side note: I hope her use of “humane” isn’t being used to suggest that animals (dogs, monkeys, dolphins, etc.) cannot be caring. Of course there is a long tradition of abusing animals and treating them as something not deserving the proper stewardship for which they were created.

This author needs to think a little harder about her subject matter before she types again.

Acts 13:1-4

“Biblical Question: Why is it assumed in Acts 13:1-4 that this was a church wide gathering and not 5 men praying and fasting? It seems all the commentaries I read assume it was a corporate worship gathering. What say you?”

I’ve always read this passage assuming that it was just the five men. That seems to be the most natural reading. But, yes, most of the commentaries I have either just assume a congregation was involved or attempt to make that argument.

That argument is very flimsy in my estimation. They point to Acts 6:2-5 and 15:22 where the congregation chose ministers. The problem with that argument for me is that 1) there are other places where individuals choose ministers (14:23; 16:3) and 2) in 13:2 it is stated that it was specifically the Holy Spirit that did the choosing.

In the old Broadman Bible Commentary, T.C. Smith admits that it is very difficult to figure out if it is just the five or the whole congregation, but leans towards the whole. He does so because the word used for worshipping/ministering in verse 2 is leitourgein, which in Attic Greek meant to discharge some costly public duty. The Greek Old Testament used this word for priestly service in the Temple (see Hebrews 10:11). Smith believes that Luke is using this word to describe the patterns of worship that one would find in a Jewish synagogue on which the early local churches were based. The idea is that these five were in the midst of administering the worship service when the Spirit spoke through one of the prophets. This to me is the best argument for the idea that the whole congregation was involved. However, I am not convinced.

Even if these five were administering in some way related to the worship service (and we do not know what form this took), there is no indication in the text that the rest of the congregation was directly involved. The congregation is not mentioned here whatsoever. So if the congregation is sometimes involved in these matters (6:2-5; 15:22) and sometimes not (14:23; 16:3), their lack of mention here suggests that they were not involved. The entire focus is on the five.

And here is the thing: the congregation didn’t have to be involved. The Holy Spirit was the one who acted here. The prophets and teachers were there to recognize, communicate, and affirm what the Spirit was directing. All this makes me go for the natural reading that only the five were involved.

I hope this helps.

Pouring Gallons Into Pints (Matthew 9:10-17)

As I am studying the book of Matthew, I thought I would write my thoughts on the episode recorded in 9:10-17 (Mark 2:15-22; Luke 5:29-39).

Jesus has invited “social outcasts” (those normally excluded from the covenant community) to his own home for a celebration feast hosted by Matthew (Levi). In doing so he is breaking two cultural practices (fellowship rules and fasting). The religious leaders of the day have obvious questions as to why Jesus is breaking these cultural norms.

The accounts recorded in the three synoptic Gospels differ slightly from one another. The most significant difference is that Matthew characteristically adds an Old Testament reference: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6). It is possible that Matthew’s intention is to point to the entire prophecy of Hosea. If this is the case, then at the very least, we are looking at another warning about the coming destruction of Israel (Hosea 6:4-11). At most, we could also be seeing another reference to the resurrection (Hosea 6:2; cf. Matthew 12:40). However, I am not certain that this is really Matthew’s intention here because it really doesn’t have to be. It’s best to err on the side of caution and treat this as a proof-text to what Jesus is immediately proposing.

The sacrifice that is referenced here is the ritual sacrificial system that was prescribed in the Law for dealing with the sins and transgressions of God’s people. When one committed a sin God provided a means of dealing with that sin and of seeking forgiveness. However, as is noted in Hosea 6:6 and other places in the Bible, sometimes the people would only go through the motions of enacting the rituals without having a real change of heart. God would respond that he cared more about their hearts than the ritual and that going through the motions made him hate the ritual. Jesus cites this verse as he is breaking some of the cultural rituals of his time. In doing so, he is suggesting that his purpose is directed more towards the heart than in the cultural structures that once regulated how one practiced their faith. But why is this so?

When asked why his disciples are not participating in the ritual fast, Jesus says, ““The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast” (9:15). This is a reference to the custom that individuals could abstain from the ritual fast at a wedding. Jesus elsewhere uses the analogy of a wedding to describe the coming of God to his people (Matthew 22:2-14; 25:1-13; cf. Hosea 2:19). What he is suggesting here is that something like a wedding is taken place with his presence so that the regular customs are now invalid. God has broken into history in the person and work of Jesus and has made these old customs pointless. But why have these cultural practices been made redundant? Jesus follows with examples of garments and wineskins:

“But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved” (8:16-17).

These are parables about new things in old things, about the incompatibility of the old with the new. The coming of the Kingdom of God is a decisively new stage in God’s purpose and the old cultural structures cannot contain the new movement that is being unleashed upon the world through Jesus. Paul will flesh this idea out a good deal in his letters, particularly Galatians. He will argue that there was nothing wrong with the Law itself, but that aspects of it had run its course now that God had worked decisively through Jesus. The Law is like a ship that one uses to cross the ocean to reach your destination. Once you reach land you disembark; not because the ship was ever faulty, but only because it has fulfilled its purpose. What Jesus is saying in these verses is that the old cultural customs have fulfilled their purpose and must be abandoned because God is now doing something new. 

If you put all of Jesus’ three points together, you get the following:

1)      God and Jesus are more interest in the heart than in the cultural structures of religious practice.

2)      The coming of God in the person and work of Jesus has invalidated these old cultural structures.

3)      The reason these structures are invalid is because they cannot hold, manage, and administer the new thing that God is now doing through Jesus.

The difficulty for many people in Jesus’ time is that while they fully expected God to do something decisive in history, what he is doing doesn’t fit into the expected patterns, so they don’t recognize it.

This passage is a popular one among non-traditionalists and those who are attempting to modernize the customs of the contemporary church and enact new methods of doing church and furthering the Kingdom of God. I think this is a fairly good application. One of the principles we should take away is that we should never become too attached to the traditions, customs, and ritualistic structures that we use to practice the content of our faith. These are all just modes and methods designed for a purpose. In all probability, for those whose pre-modern cultural practices went back hundreds of years, this abrupt change must have been far worse than what many experience today whose traditions only go back a few generations at most. Yet, there are still many immature believers in our churches who insist on their traditions at the detriment of furthering the Kingdom of God. There are numerous examples of this.

Worship. One of the purposes of music in worship is to help facilitate the worshipping process for believers. Mature believers should not need music in order to worship God in a service. They should cede their tastes to the younger, immature believers in order that they can learn how to effectively worship.

Clothing. Styles change over time and there is nothing in the Bible that says we must wear fancy clothing or business casual to church. Christianity is a relational faith, and it’s important that we dress like the people with whom and for whom we minister.

Methodology. Church growth methods change over time. What once worked in the 1980s and 1990s doesn’t always work in the 2000s and 2010s. Furthermore, the methods used to grow a small church will not work to grow a large church, and the methods used to grow a large church will not work to grow a megachurch. By doing so, whatever growth you get will soon evaporate. As a friend of mine said, “You can’t pour a gallon into a pint.”

I’ve stated my belief before that America is currently undergoing a spiritual revival and has been for a couple of decades. One of the reasons I think people are missing out on this current renewal it has manifested itself in ways that reject traditional methods of doing and being the church and thus they refuse to see it. Too many people want to pour new wine into old wineskins.

The Use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew

“Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel,’ which translated means, ‘God with us.’” (Matthew 1:22-23)

Both the books of Matthew and Luke record that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin when she was found to be pregnant (Matthew 1:18, 20, 23, 25; Luke 1:27, 34). Matthew adds the above verses to his narrative which includes a quotation from Isaiah 7:14. This in of itself is not unusual. One of the characteristics of Matthew is the inclusion of quotations from the OT, often along with the citation “prophecy fulfilled”, added to his source material (The Gospel of Mark, Q) (2:15, 17-18; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4-5; 27:9-10).

When we come to Matthew’s use of Isaiah 7:14, we are confronted with a bit of a problem. The Greek word he uses for virgin is parthenos, which can mean either “unmarried woman” or “virgin” but usually means the latter. Matthew gets his term from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This is the word the translators used for the Hebrew word ‘almah in Isaiah. The problem is that this latter word usually designates a “young maiden” and not a “virgin” (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Songs 1:3; 6:8). Granted a virgin usually is a young maiden (that’s where the dual use comes in), but the Hebrew word that most authors would use to specifically identify someone as a virgin would be bethulah. This is the word that the translators of the Septuagint almost always translated at parthenos. Of the two exceptions of the translators using parthenos for a word other than bethulah is Isaiah 7:14. So if Isaiah had specifically wanted to highlight the young maiden’s virginity, he would have used bethulah. But he didn’t, which suggests that this wasn’t a part of his thinking or prophecy.

A further issue is that the context of Isaiah 7 makes it clear that when God spoke this prophecy through Isaiah to King Ahaz he predicted a fulfillment during that king’s reign. So what is Matthew doing here? What does he mean that this prophecy was fulfilled?

One must be careful how one interprets these claims of “fulfilled prophecies”. Matthew does not often mean that these OT prophets were explicitly predicting the specific events of his Gospel. More frequently, he means that a further fulfillment has occurred or a second, similar event is reoccurring. Almost always he is directing his audience to the passage from which the OT quotation derives. I think that this is what Matthew is doing here with Isaiah 7:14. He is directing us to read the story of Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 in order to grasp the meaning of the Christ event.

A little history is needed to fully understand the prophecy which Isaiah proclaims. Ahaz was king of the southern kingdom of Judah from 735-715 BCE. When he ascended the throne he was met with a coalition formed by the northern kingdom of Israel and Damascus (Syria) that wanted to compel him to join them in opposing the Assyrian Empire that was arming a force against Israel. When the armies of Israel and Damascus approached Judah, the king and his people shook with fear (Isaiah 7:2). So God told Isaiah to take his son Shear-jashub (which means “a remnant shall return”), go to the king, and prophecy that the plans of Israel and Damascus would fail. In doing so, God offered the following sign to show that this prophecy would be fulfilled:

“Behold, a maiden shall be with child, and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” (Isaiah 7:14-16).

So this prophecy will be fulfilled within the time of King Ahaz. But who is the maiden and who is the child? The answer comes in chapter 8. Isaiah visits his wife (a prophetess) and she conceives and gives birth to a son whom God tells Isaiah to name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which means “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey.” God then states that before this child can say “Mommy” or “Daddy” that Assyria will conquer Israel and Damascus and take away its riches. However, the prophecy continues with a warning that the fate of the northern kingdom of Israel will befall the southern kingdom of Judah.

“Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, it will reach even to the neck; and the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel” (Isaiah 8:8). Note the second use of Immanuel here.

The prophecies against Israel and Judah (the two kingdoms of God’s covenant people) are about judgment and Exile; prophecies which eventually came to pass.

Isaiah 8:18 informs the reader that Isaiah and his children are signs. So we have Shear-jashub, meaning "a remnant shall return"; Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "swift is the booty, speedy is the prey”; and Immanuel, "God is with us".

These verses indicate that the maiden is Isaiah’s wife and Immanuel is the prophet’s son. And since Isaiah already had a son prior to the 7:14 prophecy, it’s unlikely a virgin conception in the 8^th century is meant. I note that Isaiah prophesied for 64 years and this prophecy occurred towards the beginning of his ministry, so Isaiah and his wife were probably young adults at the time.

So there is a lot going on in these prophecies: fear of attack and the promise of salvation (7:2-9, 14-16), warning of coming judgment (Exile) (7:17-25; 8:1-22; 9:8-21), and the Promise that a remnant will make it through (7:3; 9:1-7; 10:20-34: 11:11-16). The question is what is Matthew doing with this passage?

Matthew has an interest in the return of God to his people (3:3; 21:5, 12-14, 33-46; 22:1-14; 24:29-31, 42-51; 25:14-30) and the coming judgment of the nation of Israel (2:18; 3:3; 21:12-14, 33-46; 22:1-14; 23:37-39; 24:32-41; 25:1-30). In several places these two events coincide. The return of God to his people is the coming of judgment on the nation of Israel. At the same time, Matthew makes it clear from these passages that a remnant will survive the coming disaster and they will be blessed. This is essentially what Isaiah was prophesying in Isaiah 7 and surrounding passages.

I think Matthew is using the coincidence of the Greek translation of ‘almah as parthenos and the fact of the virginal conception of Jesus to point back to the prophecy of Isaiah. I think that he is doing the same with the connection between Isaiah’s son’s name Immanuel (“God with us”) and the fact that God really was “with us” in the person and work of Jesus. While I do not think that Isaiah had Jesus specifically in mind when he spoke his prophecy, Matthew is saying that this old prophecy is happening again. God is really with us in the person and work of Jesus. Judgment is coming to Israel in which the wicked will perish, but a remnant will be saved.

‘We have Abraham for our father’

“You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore, bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Matthew 3:7-9; cf. Luke 3:7-8).

John the Baptist appears on the religious scene in the early first century and begins to preach in the wilderness around the Jordan River district in Palestine, proclaiming the imminent return of God, the Kingdom of God, and the coming of the Messiah. We get a sampling of his preaching in Matthew 3:2-12, Mark 1:4-8, and Luke 3:3-18. Part of this preaching is a call to repentance in preparation for the coming judgment God is bringing. But why does John invoke Abraham in doing so?

One of the most common misconceptions about Christianity and the Bible is that Judaism is a merit-based religion and that first century Jews thought that they had to earn their salvation by good works. This is not the case and the Bible nowhere advocates such a position. First century Jews believed God had elected Israel by grace and that they had been redeemed by that grace. Their response to that redemption by grace was to follow the Law (Torah) both out of love and a commitment to the covenant between them and God. First century Jews did not think that they had to follow the Law in order to earn their salvation with God. Our modern idea that Jews believed that they had to perform good works in order to be saved is a 16^th century misreading of Paul based on the theological disputes between Protestant Reformers and Roman Catholics. The Jews believed in God’s unmerited favor and that at some point in the future God would vindicate them, they would be justified, and that all of God’s people would be saved. The question they had was how does one tell in the present who will be vindicated in the future? How does one tell who is a part of God’s people, who is a member of true Israel, the family of Abraham? Obviously, not everyone would be vindicated in the future. Not pagan Gentiles. Not apostate Jews. Not “sinners”. The answer was that one could tell who was a member of God’s people by the “works of the law”.

“Works of the law” refer to those distinctive aspects of the Jewish law that separated them from pagan Gentiles: circumcision, dietary laws, ritual cleanliness, and table fellowship requirements. These were demarcations that set true Jews, true children of Abraham apart from everyone else. They were like cultural membership badges that identified who you were. Jews didn’t perform these customs in order to earn salvation; they did so in order to show that they were saved. The closest analogy is that of Baptism: baptism does not save a person but it is a public presentation that one is saved. Paul’s argument in Romans and Galatians is that “works of the Law” are not the badges of membership for God’s people, but faith in Christ is. It’s faith in Christ that demarcates people as being saved. One does not have to become a Jew and adopt Jewish cultural distinctives in order to be identified as a part of God’s people. This was Paul’s argument about justification by faith.

Up until this point, if a Gentile wanted to be identified as a member of God’s people and a child of Abraham, their conversion would have to be marked by circumcision, dietary laws, etc. Gentiles who did not adopt these cultural practices were called “God-fearers” and excluded from general fellowship. Those Gentiles who did meet the full conversion customs (including ritual cleanliness) were brought into God’s people by the purification ritual of immersing in water, i.e. baptism.

And this brings us back to John the Baptist and his very unusual practice. Along with his proclamation of judgment and his call to repentance, John was baptizing Jews just as if they were Gentiles. This was highly unusual at the time, and it’s probably the reason why he earned the epithet “the Baptist”. John is treating Jews as if they were Gentiles in need of purification to be a part of the family of Abraham. He is saying in the verses above that Jews should not be depending upon their ethnicity and their lineage from Abraham as the guarantee that God will spare them when he returns in judgment. Being an authentic Jew is not the determining factor for God. One cannot rely on family and culture for participation in God’s family.

So if John the Baptist is recorded in the Gospels warning his contemporaries not to depend upon their ethnic association with Abraham for salvation, what is the application for us today? Simply put, you cannot depend upon the faith of your parents and family to insure personal salvation. Growing up in a Christian home does not automatically give you salvation. Similarly, being baptized as an infant does not mean you are saved. Furthermore, growing up in a church does not equate with salvation. You cannot depend upon your association with Christian culture (including going to church, listening to a sermon, and owning a Bible) and expect to be saved. One can only expect to be counted amongst God’s people if they respond to the Gospel by repentance and faith in Christ.

Sequence of Repentance in Acts (from Dale Moody's Spirit of the Living God)

As part of my studies of the works of Dale Moody I am reading his book, Spirit of the Living God. In chapter 3, Moody discusses the role of the Holy Spirit recorded in the book of Acts. Very interestingly, he asks whether it is possible to establish a fixed order for the process by which people repent, receive the Spirit, have hands laid upon them, and are baptized. He supplies the following evidence of the sequences presented in Acts.

Repentance – baptism – no hands – Spirit            (2:38)

Repentance - baptism - hands – Spirit                    (8:14ff)

Repentance - hands – Spirit – baptism                   (9:17-19)

Repentance - no hands - Spirit – baptism              (10:44-48)

Repentance - baptism - hands – Spirit                    (19:1-6)

So no fixed order of this process is presented. This means that no fixed order is preferable to another. So there is no reason to be dogmatic about how this sequence is to be practiced. However, note that repentance comes first in every instance. Repenting, turning back to God, is a prerequisite for all that happens afterwards.

The Meaning of Theopneustos

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

These are well-known verses used as a proof-text to defend and describe the both the nature and purpose of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Specifically mentioned by many is the phrase “inspired by God” which is literally “God-breathed” (theopneustos). You may have heard either a preacher or speaker refer to the Bible as “God-breathed”. This is where that comes from. But what do the Biblical writers mean when they say Scripture (graphē) is “God-breathed”?

This is a very complex issue and I will strive to condense the matter down. First and foremost, when the New Testament writers refer to the “Scriptures” (graphē) they always refer explicitly to the Old Testament writings from which they are sourcing. The only exception to this is in 2 Peter 3:16 in which the author includes Paul’s writings within the Scriptural canon. The early Church generally viewed the writings of the apostles as being authoritative, prophetic, and thus on par with the Old Testament. The only discussion they really had was identifying which writings were genuinely written by an apostle and which were forgeries. Indeed, some side movements within the Church attempted to introduce heresies into the mainstream by falsely attributing their own ideas to an apostle.

Now the ancient Hebrew conception of reality is far different than what many people are used to, and it can appear quite strange to the modern mind. They thought that psychical functions had a physical basis, and that man is conceived not in terms of a “spirit” and “body” dichotomy, but synthetically as a psychical whole (nephesh). What is more, man’s vital power was thought to reach far beyond the mere contour of the body. For the purposes of this piece, this conception had two outworkings. First, the spoken word could be regarded as an effective extension of the personality. Second, the ancient Hebrews thought that under the right conditions spoken words could affect, shape, and change reality. An example of this would be the uses of speaking blessings or curses. The Hebrews really believed that such verbalizations could impact a person for good or for ill under the appropriate conditions. Speaking a curse could negatively impact an individual or community. Speaking a blessing could have a positive impact. Thus we have the story of the prophet Balaam (Numbers 23). Another example would be the importance of the naming of a child. The verbal announcement of newborn’s name could shape that person’s life. When applied to God the creator we have him speaking creation into existence (Genesis 1). He speaks and his Word (dabar) goes out from him creating, changing, and reshaping the world. Thus Jesus the Christ is called the Word (logos). He is the fullest extension of God’s personality and an active participant in creation (John 1:1-3, 14; cf. Colossians 1:15-17).

But what happens when you or I speak and utter a word? This is important. When we speak, when we utter a word, we also breathe. Every word we speak is carried on our breath. Word and breath come out simultaneously. This is a very important image. When God speaks his Word, his breath also comes out. His breath is his Spirit (ruach, pneuma). His Word and his Spirit work in concert.

Thus we have Jesus (the Word of God) working in concert with the Spirit (the Breath of God). This is the imagery used extensively by John in his Gospel, but we see it in other NT writings. Jesus and the Spirit working in tandem (John 14:26). Jesus is the Truth (John 5:33; 8:32; 14:6) and the Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). We worship God the Father in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:23, 24). The Spirit is a Helper (paraklētos) (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7) of the same kind (allos, not hetero) (John 14:6). And Jesus also is a Helper (paraklētos) (1 John 2:1). The Spirit descends upon Jesus (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22), the Spirit is upon Jesus (Luke 4:18), the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus (Philippians 1:19; 1 Peter 1:11). This is why Jesus can send the Spirit to this followers (Luke 3:16; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 1:8). This is why the Spirit helps believers recall Jesus’ teachings (John 14:26). The Word of God works in harmony with God’s Spirit-Breath.

And it is not just with Jesus and the Holy Spirit that this Word-Spirit relationship works. The Word is the mode of creation and the Spirit gives life (Psalm 33:6). Thus man is created by God’s spoken word (Genesis 1:26-27), but it is his spirit that gives man life (Genesis 2:7; cf. Job 33:4; Ezekiel 37:14; John 6:63; Romans 8:2, 6, 10). And when the Spirit comes upon prophets it enables them to proclaim the Word of the Lord (1 Samuel 10:6, 10; 2 Samuel 23:2; 2 Chronicles 15:1; 2 Chronicles 20:14; 24:20; Nehemiah 9:30; Isaiah 59:21; Joel 2:28; Zechariah 7:12). So Peter can say “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved (pheromenoi) by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21). This word pheromenoi, from phero (to carry, to move) is used by Luke to express the idea of wind driving a boat (Acts 27:17, 27). So God sends his Word and his Spirit to a prophet/apostle /etc. and he or she is able to speak or write what God wants them to speak or write.

So now we come back to “God-breathed” (theopneustos). This is a word used only once in the Bible. In pagan Greek writings it referred to divine dreams sent by the gods and the divine utterances of oracles or prophetesses such as the sibyls who spoke the revelations of the gods. Paul appropriates this word in order to express the origins of the Scriptures (which is from God), but he is drawing upon the whole Hebrew conception that when one reads the Scriptures one is drawing simultaneously upon God’s creative Word and his life-giving Spirit. When one reads the Bible, accurately understands its meaning, and appropriately applies it, one is transformed, changed for the better, because one participates in God’s divine nature, an extension of his personality. As the author of Hebrews says, “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12, cf. Ephesians 6:17). This is why Scripture is helpful for teaching, correction, improvement, and education; so that the believer may be perfectly complete to do the work of God.

Now this does not in any way mean that the books of the Bible did not have human authors. Indeed, these very human authors poured their own personalities into their works. They all used personal vocabulary and sentence structure, particular phrases and exertions, peculiar themes and poetics, characteristic imagery, metaphors, source material, and edits. They also were men and women of their times with then contemporary views about history, cosmology, social order, and, as stated above, very unusual conceptions of reality. We can learn a lot about the Biblical authors’ personalities from their books. They presented their moods, their joys, their fears, their anger and sadness. They laughed, they wept, and they emptied themselves for their God. If the Word is an extension of God, then the Scriptures are also an extension of the human authors. Yet God is guiding all of this.

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.