SIGNS IN JOHN’S GOSPEL

The Gospel of John is considered by some one of the two great pillars of the New Testament, with Romans as the other pillar.[1] The lofty place of the fourth Gospel cannot be overstated. Augustine wrote eloquently, “John flies like an eagle above the clouds of human weakness and gazes most keenly and steadily with the eye of his heart at the light of unchangeable truth.”[2]

While there is some debate about the Gospel’s structure, it is straightforward, and there is widespread agreement about its divisions. The Gospel begins with the Prologue (1:1-18) and ends with an Epilogue (chapter 21). Between there are two major sections. The Book of Signs (1:18-12:50) and the Book of Glory (13:1-20:31).

The Book of Signs revolves around seven miraculous signs performed by Jesus, providing evidence that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (20:31). The signs are:

  • Turning water into wine (2:1-11)
  • Healing of the nobleman’s son (4:46-54)
  • Healing of the lame man (5:1-15)
  • Feeding the 5,000 (6:1-15)
  • Walking on water (6:16-21)
  • Healing the blind man (9:1-41)
  • Raising of Lazarus (11:1-44)

I could focus on any of the signs or provide a summary of all seven, but I think it is interesting that only the first two signs are numbered (2:11; 4:54). Why? I am persuaded by Borchert that the first two serve as an inclusio. They should be seen together.

Following the first sign, the disciples believe in Jesus (2:11). The result of the second sign – the nobleman believed (4:53). It is clear from John’s purpose statement that the signs are used to invoke faith (20:31). Mission accomplished. Yet if one considers the inclusio, it is the nobleman’s faith that is emphasized here. The disciples believe after they see Jesus turning water into wine. The nobleman believes his son will be healed by Jesus without seeing it take place. The disciples believe after seeing; the nobleman believes without seeing.  

By numbering the first two signs, John communicates that they form a unit. They are telling us something about believing. The nobleman’s faith is the primary goal of the Gospel. The disciples had to see, but for the rest of us, we must believe without seeing. Jesus would say later to Thomas, who demanded physical evidence of the Lord’s resurrection, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (20:29). As Borchert states, “The ultimate goal of this Gospel was not a believing that was based on seeing. It was a believing that was based on accepting the testimony of the witnesses without seeing.”[3]

The signs did not persuade everyone, perhaps even most. Among the saddest words in Scripture come toward the end of The Book of Signs, “But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him” (12:37). As Michaels points out, “Those who would not believe in Him are therefore not just one crowd at one Passover (12:29, 34), but all the crowds and all the Jewish leaders from the first Passover until now.”[4] In fact, the raising of Lazarus, the climatic sign in the first half of the Gospel, led the religious leaders to decide that Jesus had to die (11:53). To emphasize a point I made above, seeing was not always believing.

The signs John chose to focus upon in his Gospel reveal who Jesus is – the Christ, the Son of God. The purpose of those signs is to elicit faith from readers from the end of the first century when the Gospel was written until now. The result of that faith is ‘eternal life in His name’ (20:31). Believing while seeing the signs is not ideal, but a seeing faith is better than no faith. Faith without seeing is preferred and results, according to Jesus, in blessings (20:29).

[1] Andreas Kӧstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 1.

[2] De consensu evangelistorum 6.

[3] Gerald L. Borchert, John 12-21, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 2002), 353.

[4] J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 738.

HE SHALL BE CALLED A NAZARENE: Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament

The first Gospel contains at least 60 quotations from the Old Testament plus numerous allusions and echoes, by far the most among the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.[1] France argues that the central theme of Matthew is fulfillment.[2]

It is hard to argue with France. Scholars agree that Matthew’s distinctive use of the Hebrew Bible revolves around his ten fulfillment formula quotations, which utilize the verb πληρόω, ‘to fulfill.’ These are prominent in the first two chapters (1:22-23; 2:15, 17, 23). Others are scattered across the rest of the Gospel (4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 27:9).

The most debated of the first four fulfillment passages is the last one – 2:23: “He will be called a Nazarene.” As all commentators point out, the problem is that there is no biblical text referring to Messiah as a Nazarene. What does Matthew mean here? How is he using the Old Testament?

First, let us deal with the context. As Matthew wraps up his birth narrative, Joseph and his family are in Egypt. They are there because Herod wants “to destroy the child” (2:13). After his death in 4 B.C., an angel appears once again to Joseph. This is the fourth dream he has had and the third appearance of an angel of the Lord.[3] Herod is dead. It is now safe to return to Israel (2:20-21).

It is noteworthy that the angel uses the plural in v. 20, “For the ones seeking the young child’s life are dead.” Herod is the only one who died so a more collective use of the plural is probable. Herod is dead so those who followed him are no longer interested in killing the child.

It is probable that Joseph intended to return to Bethlehem (2:1), but when he learns that Herod’s son, Archelaus, now rules over Judea, he changes his mind and takes his little family to Galilee, ruled by another of Herod’s sons, Antipas. Another dream confirms Joseph’s fears (v. 22).[4]

They settle in Joseph and Mary’s hometown (Luke 1:26-27; 2:4). Nazareth was no metro area. It was an obscure village, not mentioned anywhere in pre-Christian literature (BDAG). Osborne writes that its population was less than 500.[5] Matthew writes that they were in Nazareth by divine direction – “So that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.”

As stated above, nowhere in the Old Testament is this found. What is Matthew doing? How does he see this as prophetic fulfillment?

There are two ways of handling this problem:

  • Matthew is associating the place name (Nazareth) and the word for a resident (Nazarene) with either the Hebrew word for ‘branch’ [nezer] or the biblical ‘Nazarite,’ one dedicated to God. Those who hold to the former point to Isaiah 11:1, which deals with the righteous reign of one who sits on David’s throne, “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.” Those who hold to the latter see fulfillment of Judges 13:5, 7; 16:17 – verses that show Samson as a Nazarite. The idea is that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of one dedicated to God.
  • Others see Matthew drawing together the obscure geographical origins of Messiah and the biblical/theological theme that he will be humble and despised.

The first view suffers as overly subtle and one needs to do philological gymnastics to make the proposed connections work. As Morris points out, “Despite the confident assertions of those who hold this view, it’s not easy to understand the connection between the Branch and (or) Nazarites in this passage.”[6] As Matthew referring to the Nazarite vow, Jesus is obviously one dedicated to God, but nothing suggests He refrained from haircuts or alcohol as required of the Nazarite in Numbers 6, and, as Blomberg makes clear, “the orthographical evidence for the linkage of these two words is lacking.”[7]

I favor the second view. There is no wordplay here. Matthew sees a general prophetic theme – thus the plural ‘prophets.’ The obscurity and humility of the Messiah is a common theme. Messiah will be rejected (Pss 22:6-8, 13; 69:8, 20-21; Isa 49:7; 53:2-3; Dan 9:26). Matthew stresses Jesus’ humility (11:29; 12:19; 21:5) and rejection (8:20; 11:16-19; 15:7-8).

An important point is Nazareth was a despised place elsewhere in the Gospels. When Nathaniel meets Jesus for the first time, he asks, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). The crowds and religious leaders are convinced that no prophet can come from Galilee (John 7:41, 52). To be among the Nazarenes in Acts led to incredible insults (24:5).[8]

If he had grown up on Bethlehem, Jesus would have been from a royal city – that of David. Jesus the Nazarene, however, carried overtones of contempt. When Matthew writes that the prophets taught He would be called a Nazarene, he sees them pointing to one who would be both despised and rejected. France concludes that Jesus would be a Messiah, “who came from the wrong place, who did not conform to the expectations of Jewish tradition, and who as a result would not be accepted by his people.”[9]

What is Matthew doing? How is he using the Old Testament in this final fulfillment formula of the birth narrative? He is doing the same here as in the others – He is showing historical patterns.[10] Events in biblical history anticipate events in Jesus’ ministry in that he fulfills them with new significance. Biblical history is fulfilled by Jesus the Messiah.[11]

The life of Jesus of Nazareth fulfills all the promises of God found in the Scriptures (Matthew 5:17-20). Jesus lifts the Old Testament to a higher plane. He has completed or ‘filled up’ the Old Testament, and he is the final interpreter of Torah.[12] As for the birth narrative, Matthew is clear — the one who is declared by Herod as illegimate is, in fact, the only legimate King of Israel.

[1] See the index of quotations and allusions/verbal parallels in UBS4. No other NT book comes close to Matthew. Hebrews is next with 37 quotations. The other Gospels – Mark (31), Luke (26), John (16).

[2] R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 11.

[3] Others are 1:20-21; 2:12; 2:13-14.

[4] Archelaus was ruthless. Even before he left for Rome to contest Herod’s final will, he overreacted to an uprising in the Temple at Passover by sending in troops and cavalry, killing about 3,000 pilgrims. He was banished to Gaul in about A.D. 6 (H.W. Hoehner, s.v. “Herodian Dynasty,” in DJG).

[5] Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, ECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 102.

[6] Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), accessed 1/8/26, ProQuest Ebook Central.

[7] Craig Blomberg, Matthew, CSC (Nashville: Holman Reference, 2025), 90. It is obvious from 11:18-19 that Jesus did not follow an ascetic lifestyle. Turner is on point when he writes, “Wordplays are based on popular associations, not on philological sophistication.” (Matthew, BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008], 99).

[8] Paul is accused before the Roman governor, Felix, of being a plague, a creator of dissension, and a ringleader of the sect called the Nazarenes.

[9] France, 95.

[10] In this case he is showing a broader prophetic pattern.

[11] Turner, 25.

[12] Adapted from Osborne, 38.

The Lukan Prologue: The How and Why of Luke’s Gospel

The questions related to the how and why of the Synoptic Gospels have been debated for millennia. The how helps us understand the relationship between the Gospels. Does Luke depend upon Mark? What about material unique to Luke, known as L? What about Q? Is Luke an independent work? Does the Lukan Prologue (1:1-4) help us understand those relationships?

Then there is the why. Why did Luke think it necessary to write what we now call a Gospel? The question is important as “why” is the essence of hermeneutics. I have stressed to students for over two decades that the goal of biblical interpretation is authorial intent. Understanding Luke’s overall purpose helps the interpreter get to authorial intent in any given passage within the Gospel. Does the Lukan Prologue help us understand his purpose and thus interpret the Gospel’s various passages?

Luke’s Prologue is widely held as among the best Greek literature of the first century.[1] By introducing his work, he is employing a well-known literary convention.[2] There is debate whether the prologue introduces both Luke and Acts. It likely serves as an introduction of the Gospel only as Acts has its own brief prologue that continues the story (1:1-2).[3] Also, the idea of traditions handed down (v. 2) probably refers more to the Gospel tradition than the Acts narrative.

In Greek, the prologue is one sentence. While that is a bit unwieldly, the structure is simple. First, there is a dependent clause (vv. 1-2) informing Theophilus of Luke’s predecessors and the prior transmission of Jesus traditions. An independent clause follows in which Luke presents his method (v. 3), followed by a purpose statement (v. 4).

While the prologue’s structure is clear, almost every word found in the four verses is debated. What follows is a verse-by-verse treatment, using my own translation of the Greek text. A summary of what one learns from the Prologue is then provided.

Verse 1

Since many have tried to write a narrative (produce an account) of the things which have been fulfilled among us.

“Since many have tried to write a narrative (produce an account)” – The first issue is the word ‘many.’ One would love to know how many had attempted to produce a narrative about Jesus. How many ‘lives of Christ’ were there? Here is where scholars often attempt to insert their favorite solution to the Synoptic Problem.[4] The fact is Luke is clear there were others. He is unclear, however, on the number.

A second important word in verse 1 is translated ‘tried.’ Scholars debate what Luke thought of those other ‘lives.’ Luke uses the word in Acts 9:29 and 19:13 in the sense of unsuccessful attempts. The context here, however, leans toward simply reporting a fact that Theophilus would know – there were other ‘lives of Christ’ out there. A censure seems out of place here. Besides, Luke portrays witnesses as positive in Acts (1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41; 13:31; 22:15; 22:20; 26:16).

“Write (produce) a narrative” – Are the other accounts written or oral? My translation leans toward written narratives.[5] While written accounts seem most likely, one still cannot rule out completely oral traditions.

“Of the things which have been fulfilled among us” – What are ‘the things?’ OT prophecies? Luke may not have specific OT prophecies in mind here but stating that Jesus’ life fulfilled the OT and its promise of a Messiah.

“Have been fulfilled” – Grammar matters. The perfect tense is used here to show that not only did these events happen in the recent past, but they have an effect in the present (‘they have been and still are fulfilled’). One can look no further than Luke’s second volume to see how the events fulfilled affected the early church.

“Among us” – Many scholars limit ‘us’ to first generation believers. Bock broadens it to second and third generation Christians: “Past and present believers, united by these events, share in their significance. The historical ground that produced this impact is the topic of Luke’s two volumes.”[6] Luke did not witness these events, but the consequences of the events were still very much in effect as Luke writes (and today as well!).

In verse 1, Luke writes that many have compiled a written narrative about Jesus’ life. There is no way to know how many. Did they include the other Synoptics? Maybe, but that cannot be ascertained from Luke’s statement. Thus, one wonders if the Prologue can help us at all with Synoptic relationships.

Verse 2

Just as the those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down to us

“Handed down” – translates a verb that is a technical term for the passing down of tradition.

“To us” – this pronoun is obviously a group that was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life. The pronoun would seem to include Luke.

“Eyewitnesses and servants of the word” – Grammatically, Luke is telling us about one group. There is just one definite article used in the phrase, coupling the two nouns. This is a reference to the apostolic witness. They, the Apostles, were eyewitnesses and servants (proclaimers) of the Word.[7]

“From the beginning” – To what does the phrase refer? In Acts 1:21-22, we read about the Apostles replacing Judas. What was the requirement for that office? Peter is clear that the replacement must have been with them, “all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us – beginning with the baptism of John until the Day He was taken up from us.” So, the phrase means from the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry, starting with the forerunner. For Luke that would include the birth of the forerunner as the first chapter makes clear.

In v. 2, Luke identifies those who have handed down the Jesus tradition. He calls them eyewitnesses and servants of the word. The Twelve stand as the primary stewards of that tradition.  

V. 3

It seemed good to me also having carefully investigated from the beginning everything from the beginning to write for you an orderly account, excellent Theophilus

The main clause begins at verse 3. Luke tells Theophilus about the method he used in writing the Gospel.

Luke joins others who have written ‘lives of Jesus.’ First Luke says he investigated the other accounts and eyewitness testimony. BDAG defines the verb used by Luke as ‘follow a thing,’ ‘trace or investigate a thing.’ Robertson agrees, noting the perfect active participle means to follow a thing in mind, to trace carefully.[8] Luke is claiming fullness of knowledge before he began to write. Robertson states, “Whether he was a personal contemporary with any or all of these events we do not know and it is not particularly pertinent. He had mentally followed along by the side of these events.”[9]

“From the beginning” – Does this word mean ‘from the beginning’ or ‘a long time.’ Luke uses it in both ways in Acts 26:5. There it means ‘a long time.’ It is difficult here to determine Luke’s use here. If he means ‘a long time,’ he is discussing how long it took to research or is discussing its scope? Translations are mixed on the interpretation. The NASB, for example, translates the word as ‘from the beginning,’ while the ESV states Luke had followed all things, ‘for some time past.’ While it is difficult to decide, I lean toward Luke’s concern as scope rather than length of time. He appears to be more concerned about the content of his Gospel than how long it took him to research it.

“Carefully” – Luke investigated his sources carefully and thoroughly.[10]

“To write for you an orderly account” – As with most of the Prologue, this phrase is debated. The adverb is used five times in the NT, all by Luke. It means “in order, one after another, of sequence in time, space, or logic” (BDAG). The idea is Luke is writing in an orderly sequence.

The question is, what kind of orderly sequence? Luke begins with the Infancy Narrative and ends with the Passion Narrative. That suggests chronological. However, in the Central Section (9:51 to 19:27), it is obvious that he is more thematic.[11] Luke is telling Theophilus that his ‘life of Jesus’ is an orderly account. It is organized and tells the story of His life and ministry.

In v. 3, Luke writes that he investigated Jesus’ life carefully from start to finish and produced an organized account, telling the story of Jesus.

V. 4

In order that you may know the truth about the things (words) which were you taught.

Verse 4 is Luke’s purpose statement.

“Truth” – The word in Greek appears at the end of the sentence. The emphatic position points to its importance. Does the word speak of correctness, reliability, or assurance? Why not blend ideas. Luke is writing correct, reliable history that is meant to provide Theophilus assurance about the Jesus tradition he had been taught. He can be sure of the apostolic witness.

In v. 4, Luke states that his purpose is to bring Theophilus assurance that what he had heard and learned about Jesus’ life and ministry from the traditions handed down were true. From the Prologue, it is clear that Luke is interested in accuracy. After all, what good are the traditions Theophilus has been taught if they are untrue? How does Luke accomplish his purpose if he bears false witness? Plus, anything untrue in his life of Jesus could be easily pointed out by those still alive who witnessed the events.[12]

Does Luke help us understand Gospel relationships? Not really. He writes that there were other ‘lives of Christ’ out there, but he does not reveal how many, and although I have argued above the accounts were probably written, there could have still been some oral tradition circulating of which Luke was aware. We all would like to know if Luke used the other Gospels, if there was something like Q,[13] and what other specific sources he used for his unique material. Luke was not concerned enough about sources to identify them.

Luke was concerned about truth. By writing his own life of Christ, based upon careful research, Luke was taking the mantle as a steward of those traditions. He was concerned about relating them accurately and in an orderly fashion to both edify and encourage Theophilus and the readers who would come after him. Modern interpreters should keep Luke’s overall purpose in mind as they work through the Gospel. His ‘life of Christ’ is meant to strengthen and encourage the believer. The traditions handed down are true! Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise and of His salvation – a salvation that was then and is now available to all who call upon Him (Romans 10:13).

[1] Robert Stein, Luke, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 1992), 62.

[2] Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/lib/gcu/detail.action?docID=4860168.

[3] Most scholars see Luke’s work as one, not two books. For a discussion of how the prologues of Luke and Acts relate to each other, see Gary Habermas, Resurrection: Evidences (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2024).

[4] See Stein’s article, “Luke 1:1-4 and Traditionsgeschichte,” JETS 26, no. 4 (1983): 422 as an example.

[5] BDAG suggests a written account.

[6] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 57.

[7] Luke’s designation could include the 70 and perhaps even Paul. Luke reports that The Twelve were chosen from among His disciples (Luke 6:12-13). When Paul met Jesus on the Damascus Road, the Lord tells him he would be both a minister and a witness (Acts 26:16). Regardless, I think Stein is correct when he writes that for Luke, the Twelve stand at the forefront of this group (“Traditionsgeschichte,” 425). He would have them in mind primarily in v. 2.

[8] A.T. Robertson, “The Gospel According to Luke,” in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Sunday School Board, 1930), 6.

[9] Robertson, “Luke,” 6. See above where the writer concludes Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus’ life.

[10] According to Robertson, the word means going into minute detail (“Luke,” 6).

[11] Also called Luke’s Travel Narrative, the section shows Jesus heading toward Jerusalem and the cross. Morris writes that is inarguable that Luke has Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem in mind in this section as it is mentioned several times (9:51, 53; 13:22, 33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28). A problem, however, arises when one tries to trace its course (Leon Morris, Luke, rev. ed, TNTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 194). He quotes Kümmel who sees the section as “The Lord, who goes to suffer according to God’s will, equips his disciples for the mission of preaching after his death” (195).

[12] The writer holds that Luke was written in the 60s while Paul was under house arrest in Rome (Acts 28). The point is that there were many eyewitnesses still alive when Luke wrote his Gospel who could point out any inaccuracies.

[13] Material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.

Mark’s Titles for Jesus (Part 2)

In a previous post, I dealt primarily with two titles found in Mark to describe Jesus – Christ and Son of God. They are introduced to us in the first verse of the Gospel and are of paramount importance if one wants to understand Mark’s Christology. In this post, the last two are discussed – Son of Man and Teacher.

It is well known that Son of Man is Jesus’s favorite self-description. He calls Himself Son of Man fourteen times in Mark. The title has two emphases. First is authority. The Son of Man has authority to both forgive sins and heal (2:10); He is Lord of the Sabbath (2:28), and He is coming back again in glory with the authority to judge (8:38; 13:26; 14:62). This emphasis is tied to Daniel 7:13-14 where the Son of Man is given dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom.[1]

Second, and surprisingly given the Daniel 7 prophecy, the Son of Man will be rejected, suffer, die and rise again (8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:33-34). Whatever else Son of Man might mean, the title is tied to His mission as both a servant and vicarious sufferer (10:45). The Son of Man sayings in this category show that suffering is the pathway to glory and dominion.

There are four uses of the title in the Passion Narrative. Two of them are mentioned above (13:26; 14:62) — a woe is pronounced on the one who betrays the Son of Man (14:21), and at Gethsemane, after a third time catching Peter, James, and John asleep while He prayed, Jesus proclaimed, “Are you still sleeping and resting? It is enough! The hour has come; behold, the Son of Man is being betrayed into he hands of sinners” (14:41). These two uses emphasize suffering as well by means of betrayal. That betrayal is not arbitrary, but it is the will of God and the means by which that will is accomplished.[2]

Son of Man encapsulates what Mark wants his readers to know about Jesus.

Marshall emphasizes that the title is the vehicle through which Jesus teaches about His mission and fate. He is a figure of authority who is rejected, betrayed, suffers, and dies, but He is resurrected from the dead. In the future He comes again, bringing salvation and judgement.[3] By using Son of Man, Jesus is indicating He is a unique human being with unique authority and a unique mission – both on earth and in heaven.

While Son of Man is Jesus’s favorite self-designation, Teacher is the favorite address of others for Him; thus authoritative teacher is an important theme in Mark, as well as the other Gospels. He is called Teacher by His disciples (4:38; 9:38; 10:35; 13:1; 14:14), the crowd following Him or one person from that crowd (5:35; 9:17; 10:17, 20), and by religious leaders (12:14, 19, 32). Jesus is addressed as Rabbi in 9:5; 10:51; 11:21; 14:45.

The verb is also prominent. Jesus teaching is found in 1:21- 22; 2:13; 4:1-2; 6:2, 6, 34; 8:31; 9:31; 10:1; 11:17; 12:35; 14:49. His teaching was with authority unlike the scribes (1:22). Often, He taught using parables (4:1-2). We can assume the subject of His teaching was the Kingdom of God, since that was the topic of His proclamation (1:15). From 8:31 forward, Jesus taught His disciples about His impending Passion and resurrection (8:31).

No matter where He was, Mark tells us that Jesus’s habit was to teach those following Him (2:13; 6:1, 6, 34; 10:1; 12:35). He continued teaching until His arrest in Jerusalem (14:49).

The title is associated with Jesus’s authority to cast out demons (1:21-28; 9:17-29) still storms (4:35-41); and feeding the 5,000 (6:33-44). I think Stein is on target; “Teacher” carries with it the kind of authority usually associated with the title ‘Lord.’”[4]

Mark uses the verb (to teach) and the noun (teacher) more than the other Gospels. Thus, he wants his readers to see teaching as essential to Jesus’s messianic mission and one uniquely appropriate to Him.[5] His teaching is not like those who came before Him – it was infused with divine authority.[6]

[1] Daniel’s prophecy of a Son of Man is reinforced by 1, 4 Enoch. In Second Temple Judaism there was a strong tradition that centered upon a judge-deliverer – called among other things the Son of Man. The title was probably well known in Jesus’s time.

[2] James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 112.

[3] “Son of Man,” s.v. DJG, by I. Howard Marshall.

[4] Robert Stein, Mark, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 243. On the other hand, R. Riesner argues that the title does not express an exalted status but describes the outward form of His ministry (“Teacher,” s.v. DJG, rev. ed.). Brooks agrees with Riesner, “ . . .it is doubtful that “Teacher” should be treated as a Christological title in the same way that ‘Son of God’ or ‘Son of Man are,” while admitting that Mark portrays Jesus as an authoritative teacher (James Brooks, Mark, NAC [Nashville: B&H, 1991], 87.

[5] R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 102.

[6] “Various Jewish groups expected the messiah would teach in the fullness of God’s wisdom” (“Teacher,” s.v. DJG, rev. ed., by R. Riesner). It is no wonder that Jesus’s teaching brought great excitement and wonder.

Mark’s Titles for Jesus (Part 1)

While there are undoubtedly several themes in Mark’s Gospel worth pursuing, its primary one is Christological in nature. That is seen in the very first verse – “The beginning of the gospel of (about)[1] Jesus Christ, the Son of God (ESV).”

Mark’s Gospel is good news about Jesus Christ. “Christ” is not used often as a title for Jesus. Its only use by a disciple is Peter’s confession in 8:29. Each time the title is used (8:21; 9:41; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61; 15:32) it is obviously referring to Jesus as Messiah. It is synonymous with “Son of David” (10:47, 48; 12:35, 37). There is some debate whether this is a title or simply His name. This is the only time in the Gospel that it is paired with “Jesus.” Since every other use of “Christ” is a title, I lean toward that here as well, especially given that a prophecy from Isaiah comes directly afterward. The time of messianic fulfillment has come in the ministry of John the Baptist (1:2-3).

Jesus is identified by Mark as “the Son of God.” There is a text debate about the phrase. The original א Ɵ 28 l2211 pc sams Or omit “the son of God,” while virtually all other witnesses have the words. The omission in the two uncial MSS is probably due to scribal error, considering the sequence of six identical endings.[2]

What about the title? Stein argues it is the most important in Mark.[3] The title is used when God proclaims at Jesus’s baptism. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (1:11).[4] In 3:11, the unclean spirits cast out by Jesus fell down before Him and proclaimed Him as the Son of God. When he saw Jesus, the demoniac of the Gadarenes and worshiped Him, crying out, “What have I to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God (5:7)? One sees the title again at the Mount of Transfiguration as God again calls Jesus His beloved Son and commands the disciples to “hear Him” (9:7).

The title is seen again in the Passion Narrative. In the Parable of the Vineyard (12:1-12), a father sends several servants into his vineyard to get some of its fruit from the vinedressers. They are treated shamefully and one is killed. “Therefore, still having one son, his beloved, he also sent him to them” (v. 6). The vinedressers kill him (8). While the title is not directly stated, Jesus is obviously speaking of Himself – the beloved Son of God — and predicting His own death.

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is clear that no one knows the day or the hour of His return, not even He – the Son (v. 32). After His arrest, Jesus is asked by the high priest, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” (v. 61). Jesus replies, “I am” (v. 62); He then connected this title with Son of Man in proclaiming that they would see Him sitting at the right hand of God and coming “with the clouds of heaven.”[5]

The most ironic use of the title comes from the lips of the centurion after Jesus’s death: “Truly this man was the Son of God” (15:34).[6] I see this statement by the centurion as foreshadowing the gentile mission and acts and as the second book end to the Gospel – the other 1:1. Though ironic, the Roman soldier’s proclamation is an important literary device in Mark.

One other allusion to the title needs mention. In Mark 1, Jesus meets a man in the synagogue at Capernaum on the Sabbath with an unclean spirit – “And he cried out, saying, ‘Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth?[7] Do You come to destroy us? I know who You are – the Holy One of God!’” The title uttered by the demons is akin to Son of God. The supernatural insight of the demons shows Jesus’s special relationship to the Father. This is the only place the title is used in Mark.

There are titles in Mark used more often (Son of Man/Teacher[8]), but Son of God is used in the Gospel’s first verse. The Gospel is about Jesus Christ the Son of God. It is with this title that the Father describes the Son (baptism and transfiguration). The demonic world obviously considers Him the Son of God. The centurion proclaims Him as such at the cross. Perhaps, I have been influenced too much by the fact that Son of Man is used more often in Mark. I am not quite there, but I am leaning toward Stein’s position that this is the most important title in the book for Jesus, especially given the bookends of the Gospel’s thesis statement in 1:1 and the centurion’s proclamation in 15:34. According to Mark, Jesus has a relationship with the Father no one else has – as His beloved Son.

[1] Parentheses mine showing the genitive as objective.

[2] R.T France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 49.

[3] Robert H. Stein, Mark, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 22.

[4] Scripture quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise noted.

[5] Many scholars see Jesus’s reply to the high priest as seeing two events: His exaltation after the resurrection and the Parousia.

[6] The title lacks the definite article in the Greek text, thus, the translation could be ‘a son of God.’ However, in 1:1 there is no definite article, and in the context of Mark’s Gospel, it seems clear that “son of God’ is meant here. Of course, the centurion would likely not understand the full impact of that reality. However, Stein is correct when he writes, “The death of Jesus reveals to the gentile world that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It is ironic that the Jewish leadership and onlookers mock Jesus, but a hated Roman solider makes the greatest human confession in the entire Gospel . . . What God bore witness to at Jesus’s baptism and transfiguration, what demons have confessed time and time again, and what Jesus has acknowledged to the Jewish leadership is now confessed by a Roman centurion, who represents a large host of gentiles who would become followers of Jesus” (pp. 719, 721)

[7] I like the NET translation, which is a bit less wordy and captures the idiom – “Leave us alone, Jesus the Nazarene!”

[8] See next post.

What Did Jesus Mean by the Kingdom of God?

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” [Mark 1:14-15 NIV]

There is not much unanimity in scholarship, so when you have it, you would think any debate is over. Not necessarily. There is unanimity on the fact that the primary subject of Jesus’ teaching and preaching is the kingdom of God (heaven). The debate, however, remains about what He meant by that important term.

The term “kingdom of God” or Matthew’s preferred circumlocution, “kingdom of heaven” appears in sixty-one separate sayings in the Synoptic Gospels.[1] The most common interpretations of what Jesus meant by the coming/nearing kingdom of God are:

  • A Davidic-like kingdom about to be established in Jerusalem (political view)
  • A new, spiritual rule of God established in the human heart (non-eschatological view)
  • The end of history is soon occurring and the final judgment taking place (consistent eschatological view)
  • The promised rule of God now having arrived in its entirety (realized eschatological view)
  • The kingdom is future, but its agent (Jesus) is present, thus the kingdom in His ministry is not present in an absolute sense but only in so far as it is represented by Jesus. Its arrival is future (potential eschatology)
  • The reign of God now beginning, in that OT promises are being fulfilled, the promised Spirit is once again active and soon dwelling in every believer, but the final consummation still lies in the future (inaugural eschatology or the already-but-not-yet view)[2]

Only the sixth view makes sense of the Gospel passages about the kingdom. First, Jesus was not a revolutionary seeing to oust Roman rule with a political government. He makes that clear, for example, in His famous statement in the Temple court, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s (Mark 12:17 NKJV).

Second, Jesus never spoke of the kingdom of God as mere spiritual – within the human heart.  Neglecting the future aspect of the kingdom is an error. Plus, the kingdom does not enter the believer; it is the believer who enters the kingdom.

The third and fourth view do have Gospel support. The consistent eschatological can be seen in passages such as Matthew 25:31-46; Mark 9:1; 14:25; Luke 11:2. Passages such as Matthew 11:4-6; Mark 2:19-22; Luke 11:20 support realized eschatology.[3]

The fifth view fails due to too much hair splitting. If the kingdom’s agent is present, then is it not enough to say the kingdom has come in the Son of Man? It appears the teachings and mighty works of Jesus do more than make the kingdom potentially present.

That brings us to the sixth view – already-but-not-yet. Taking views three and four and combining them, one can see clearly that the kingdom of God has come in the ministry of Jesus. The reign of God is now. Jesus has encroached upon Satan’s territory and is taking it one person at a time as the Spirit indwells every believer. Yet, the kingdom is not yet consummated. That awaits the coming of Jesus. At His return, the world will come under His rule (Matthew 7:21-23; 25:31, 34). That is why believers are urged to pray, “Your kingdom come.”[4]

The kingdom, according to Jesus:

  • Includes a radical righteousness greater than the Jewish religious leaders (Matt 5:19-20)
  • Requires believers to seek it first, before any physical need (Matt 6:33)
  • Must be proclaimed by believers (the church). The parables of the kingdom (Matt 13 and Mark 4) present the preaching about the kingdom and responses to that preaching
  • Has authority. The keys to the kingdom (Matt 16:19) symbolize that authority. The keys are the apostolic message about Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
  • Is entered by repentance and faith (Mark 1:15), characterized by childlike humility (Matt 18:3-4; 19:14)
  • Requires vigilance as its future arrival is unknown (Matt 25:1-13).[5]

The answer to the question, What did Jesus mean by the Kingdom? is multi-faceted. In essence, the kingdom arrived in the ministry of Jesus and awaits consummation when He comes again. To be a kingdom citizen means a person has come to Christ humbly, repenting of sins; lives righteously by the power of God’s Spirit; and is on mission extending the kingdom to the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8), while watching for its full consummation.

[1] Robert Stein, Mark, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 72. The circumlocution reflects the Jewish avoidance of the divine name. The number of kingdom sayings in the Synoptics varies. I have used Stein, but Caragounis in his excellent article about the kingdom in DJG lists 76 different kingdom sayings. The kingdom of God plays no significant role in John.

[2] Stein, Mark, 72.

[3] Advocates of consistent eschatology hold that Jesus was a prophet who predicted imminent apocalyptic catastrophe that would usher in the reign of God – thus the kingdom of God is future. Those who hold to realized eschatology view Jesus as a teacher of ethics who inaugurated the kingdom on earth, where it will always be [David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 42-3.] Turner rightly points out also that the two views are very close to those held by dispensationalists and amillennialists – perhaps more familiar terms for readers.

[4] See George Ladd’s seminal work, The Presence of the Future (Baker: Eerdmans, 1974). Nearly all of NT scholarship sides with Ladd and holds the already-not-yet view of the kingdom

[5] Adapted from Turner, 44.

The Unforgiveable Sin: Can You Commit It?

In a previous post I noted that there is a sin that cannot be forgiven. What is the unpardonable sin? Some believe it is murder, adultery, or even divorce. It is actually amazing to me how many Christians I have come across who believe they have committed the unpardonable sin. While we may not forgive another or ourselves for those or other sins we believe to be grievous, what about God?

In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus said, “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (ESV).

Jesus says the unpardonable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. What does He mean?

This is a triple-tradition passage, but I am going to focus on Matthew in this post. Let us set Jesus’ statement in context. In 12:22-27, Jesus heals a demon oppressed man, who was both blind and mute. The man can now both see and hear (v. 22). The crowd is amazed and asks, “Can this be the Son of David” (the Messiah)? The Greek construction of the question is interesting[1] – it anticipates a negative answer. One might translate the question as, “This man isn’t the Son of David, is he?” While an absolute no is not necessary, there is still significant uncertainty about Jesus’ identity.  

The Pharisees think they can explain what is happening. Jesus is not Messiah; He is Satan. Jesus is casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons (v. 24). Jesus identifies him as Satan in v. 26. They cannot deny the miracle, but Jesus’ power to make this man whole again is the devil’s work.

Jesus, who knew their thoughts (v. 25), then responds by making three points. First, the work cannot be Satan’s or else he would be reversing his own work, leaving his kingdom divided. That makes no sense. Second, his works are not the only ones judged by the religious leaders. What about other exorcists?[2] Their power must come from the devil, too. It is doubtful the Pharisees would make such a claim. Third, and most importantly, if Jesus is casting out demons by the power of God’s Spirit, then “the kingdom of God has already overtaken you” (v. 28).

As Blomberg states, “Verse 28 is arguably the single most important teaching of Jesus on realized eschatology – the present aspect of the kingdom.[3] God’s kingdom has arrived in the person and work of Jesus – this miracle, as well as the others He performed, are proof.

A short parable illustrates that point (v. 29). To plunder his house, the strong man must be tied up. Jesus must first bind Satan before He can plunder his house. That was in fact what He did during His earthly ministry. Jesus began taking Satan’s territory – one person at a time! As Turner proclaims, “Satan’s power was effectively shattered at Christ’s first coming, yet he is still a powerful enemy who must be resisted by all the means of grace . . . Only in the future will he be totally incapacitated.”[4]

Jesus makes a strong statement in v. 30: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” There is no neutral ground. If people cannot see Jesus for who He is based upon His teaching and work, they are in danger of judgement. In the end, all will all be judged by what they have decided about Jesus.

Then comes the “therefore”(v. 31)—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable.

Taking the whole narrative into consideration, one can determine what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit – the unforgiveable sin. It is rejecting His witness of Jesus. This cannot be forgiven. To reject with a hard heart, as the Pharisees do here and elsewhere, the evidence of God’s Spirit about God’s Son is to face the God the Father’s judgement.

The decision one renders about Jesus points to the quality of the heart (vv. 33-37). When someone declares that Jesus’ works are those of Satan, those words reveal an evil person who “will give an account for every worthless word” (v. 36). Worthless words are those spoken against the Spirit’s witness about Jesus.

To summarize – According to this passage, blasphemy against the Spirit is the hard-hearted rejection of the Spirit’s witness about Jesus. As Matthew’s Gospel unfolds, we read that the Jewish religious leaders’ rejection of Christ became an all-out-war against Him that ultimately led to their insisting on His death by crucifixion.

There is debate about whether this sin can be committed today. Yes. The context will be different, of course. One does not have to equate Jesus’ works with Beelzebul, but the same kind of rebellion and rejection of the Spirit’s witness that we see in the Pharisees lives on and has for two-thousand years. Christians must not equate any rebellion against Christ seen in the world with this unpardonable sin, however, as only God knows the heart. Only He knows whether a person has crossed the Rubicon from mere unbelief to an all-out rebellion from which one cannot and will not return.

One thing I can say for certain: If you are worried about committing the unpardonable sin, you have not committed it. A concern about your relationship with God proves you are not even close to the rebellion of the Pharisees.

Only those who are enemies of Jesus are in any kind of danger of committing this sin. His followers cannot.

[1]  Μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς Δαυίδ;

[2] Most commentators take “your sons” as other Jewish exorcists.

[3] Craig Blomberg, Matthew, NAC (Nashville: B&H), 202.

[4] David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 322.

The Warning Passages in Hebrews

The book of Hebrews is essentially a series of exhortations from the writer (I often call him the preacher) urging his readers to not turn away from their faith. Some were turning back to Judaism and many others were tempted to do so. His exhortations are based on the superiority of Christ. Key to the book are the so-called warning passages. One of them is found in Hebrews 6:

 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age  and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 

This passage is one of the most controversial in the entire Bible. The warning passages have been interpreted in four ways:

  • A Christian who loses his/her salvation [Yet see John 6:39-40; 10:27-29]
  • The preacher has built a hypothetical scenario for rhetorical affect—it seems to me that if the warning here is not real then it would not have an affect!
  • The preacher is talking about God’s discipline—a Christian losing his/her reward—the language of this passage seems too strong for that view.
  • Exhortation to Genuine Christianity—he is speaking of those who ‘profess’ Christ but do not ‘possess’ Him. Instead of identifying with Christ and ‘bearing His disgrace’ [Heb 13:13]—they stand with those who at the cross cast insults at Him, disparaging His claims as the True Messiah (6:6).

Keep in mind the writer is “convinced of better things relating to salvation” (Heb 6:9).

My stance on the passages is that the preacher is writing about those who profess but don’t possess. One of my teachers, Dr. Thomas D. Lea, observed correctly, “The distinctive evidence of true Christianity is endurance” (The New Testament: Its Background and Message, 514.)

Is She in Hell?

It wasn’t long ago that I had a conversation with a person who believed if a Christian commits suicide he/she is going to Hell. Salvation once held is lost. Is that true? Is this an unpardonable sin. Is it beyond the grace of God?

As a young pastor I had to preach the funeral of a young lady who committed suicide. It was difficult and sad; her mother was broken. She had two questions. Why did she do it? I had no answer for that, of course, and did not offer a guess. She had many problems – a combination of them and the feeling of desperation and hopelessness were probably root causes.

Then came the question I knew I would get. Is she in Hell? I had an answer to that question. As a child she had made a commitment to Christ. For the better part of her life, she had lived for Christ. I remember well taking out my Bible and reminding this grieving mother of John 10:27-30:

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.

There’s an important double negative in the Greek text – “I give them eternal life, and they shall not never perish.” The double negative is bad English, but it is good Greek. In the strongest possible terms, Jesus said if you have eternal life you will never never never never never (keep going) no not ever perish! A saved person is in the hands of both the Father and Son. Jesus said He and the Father were one. What is true of one is true of the other. They have not just the same essence but the same purpose – the same power. One’s place in the hands of the Father and the Son is the most secure one of all!! You cannot be snatched away (and you cannot snatch yourself away).

My brief sermon text at that funeral was Romans 8:35-39: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:

“For your sake we face death all day long;
    we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is a strong statement from Paul and full of hope. Nothing – not even death — can separate you from God’s love in Christ Jesus. There is no qualifier here. There is no addendum. Nothing means nothing. That includes the means of death.

There is nothing in the Bible about suicide as an unpardonable sin. My background is Baptist, so I’ll pick on them. It is too bad that so many Baptists I’ve known affirm salvation comes by grace, but it is kept by works. Works do not get you in; works do not keep you in. From start to finish salvation is God’s work of grace.

One of my favorite commentators is Leon Morris. He writes, “Our continuous in eternal life depends not on our feeble hold on Christ (and it is feeble indeed), but on his firm grip on us” (L. Morris, The Gospel according to John, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 43). All I can add is a hearty, “Amen!”

There is an unpardonable sin. That might be the subject of an upcoming post.

The Guard at the Tomb: Fact or Fiction Part 2

This is a short pericope, but it is an important one, thus whether it is historical is not an unimportant issue. If, as Wright points out, this story “is part of an apologia for the bodily resurrection of Jesus . . . an attempt to ward off any suggestion that the disciples had in fact stolen the body,”[1] determining its historicity is a worthy exercise.

First, let us deal with the objection that this passage is found only in Matthew. It does seem strange that no other Gospel writer mentions this – given that the disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body.[2] Deciding that a passage is fictional because it is single-tradition, however, is tenuous. For example, as Haberman shows, of the three times that the Gospel writers record that Jesus raised someone from the dead, only the account of Jarius’ daughter appears in more than one Gospel (Matthew 9:18-26; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56).[3] A skeptical scholar such as John Meier admits the raisings of the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-17) and Lazarus (John 11) are probably historical.[4] Why not this passage?

An important point is made by Craig – “the evangelists often inexplicably omit what seem to be major incidents that must have been known to them (for example, Luke’s great omission of Mk. 6. 45 – 8. 26) so that it is dangerous to use omission as a test for historicity.”[5]

An independent witness would help us determine the pericope’s historicity. After all, among the important criteria of authenticity is multiple attestation. Does the Gospel of Peter fit that bill?[6] There are similarities between Peter and Matthew, but there are many and often incredible differences between the two. In Peter the elders go to Pilate (on Friday) and ask for the guard for three days, “Otherwise the people may assume he has been raised from the dead and then harm us” (v. 28). As mentioned above, the centurion Petronius and the soldiers are commanded to guard the tomb – where it was sealed with seven seals (v. 33). The next morning a crowd came from Jerusalem to see the sealed crypt (v. 34), but during the night, while soldiers stood guard, a great voice was heard from the sky, which opened and two men, very bright, descended and drew near to the tomb (vv. 35-36). Three men emerge from the tomb, two of them supporting the other, with a cross following behind them (v. 39). The heads of the two reached the sky, but the head of the one they were leading went up above the skies (v. 40). And they heard a voice, “Have you preached to those who are asleep” (v. 41)? The cross replies, “Yes” (v. 42).

Next in Peter is the guard telling Pilate what happened, the centurion proclaiming the one they saw as the Son of God and Pilate exclaiming, “I am clean of the blood of the Son of God” (vv. 43-46).

Finally, the soldiers are told to say nothing, “For it is better . . . for us to incur a great sin before God than to fall into the hands of the Jewish people and be stoned” (v. 48).

Frankly, this mid-second century document is not much help in determining the historicity of the Matthew passage. It appears dependent upon Matthew, but there are so many embellishments.[7] As Habermas concludes, “There’s a stark difference between sources that ‘make it’ into a historical slot and those that can be used to build the essentials of a historical case. Peter may possibly make the first prerequisite but is incapable of leaping the latter barrier.”[8]

The Gospel of Peter does not affect our assessment, one way or another, about the historicity of the Guards at the Tomb pericope.

One other point should be made about the passage’s origin. There’s much discussion about possible sources among scholars. Nolland, for example, writes, “At various points non-Matthean features do seem to point to a source, but Matthew seems likely to have significantly overwritten his source.”[9] Other commentators write similarly. There had to be a non-Matthean source. There is no doubt the Gospel writers used sources, Luke admits that in his prologue. He interviewed eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4)? Perhaps Matthew did the same thing. While he certainly was not there when the religious leaders went to Pilate to ask for guards at the tomb, the fact that he allowed it would hardly be a secret. Matthew could have spoken to those who would have first-hand knowledge of what the religious leaders had done. Maybe one of them (Nicodemus?) told him.

Ultimately, according to Wright, there are five reasons to conclude the passage is historical:

  1. It is implausible to suppose that the story would have been invented in the first place, let alone told and finally written down, unless there was already a rumour going around that the disciples had indeed stolen the body.
  2. A charge like this would never have arisen unless it was well known, or at least widely supposed, that there was an empty tomb and/or a missing body, requiring an explanation. This mitigates the idea that the empty tomb is a late legend, invented by the church (Matthew).
  3. The story presupposes that for the chief priests, Pharisees, and anyone else involved, the reported prediction that Jesus would rise again after three days must refer to something that happened to his corpse – no need for a guard if something just happens to his soul.
  4. The telling of this story indicates well enough that early Christians knew that the charge of stealing the body was one they were always likely to face. Thus, it was preferable to tell the story of how the accusation originated.
  5. This story shows that without question early Christians believed unquestionably in the resurrection of Jesus. There was no early Christianity without the resurrection (contra Bultmann who believed it was a late apologetic fiction).[10]

There are good reasons to conclude that the “Guards at the Tomb” passage in Matthew is fact, not fiction. That it is found only in Matthew is not an unsurmountable problem. Unique passages found in the Gospels are often characterized as historical by critical scholars. While the Gospel of Peter does not assist one to determine historicity, the summary by Wright is hard to ignore. Finally, there’s much discussion about a pre-Matthean source for the pericope, it seems just as possible that Matthew knew someone who knew someone who knew what happened. Sometimes the easiest explanation is the best.

I agree with Wright’s conclusion that the pericope is an apologia for the resurrection of Jesus and especially against the charge that the disciples stole the body. Both the empty tomb and the charge of body-snatching had to be true and well known for the pericope to make any sense.

[1] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 638.

[2] An accusation Justin tells us in the middle of the second century the Jews were still claiming (Dial. 108).

[3] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2024), 657.

[4] John Maier, M Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (New York: Doubleday), 2:970.

[5] William Lane Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/the-guard-at-the-tomb. Accessed 27 October, 2025.

[6] Gospel of Peter is likely at least a mid-second century document. It is impossible to know the circumstances of its writing. Ehrman surmises that its author used oral traditions and documents he had heard or read. That is as good a guess as any (Bart Ehrman and Zelako Plese, London: Oxford University Press, 2011), 240. The summary below follows the verse numbering of Ehrman and Plese.

[7] Most scholars follow Zahn and Swete that the text is dependent upon the canonical Gospels (Wright, Resurrection, 593). Crossan dates the gospel to the mid-40s first century, but few follow him on that point (J.D. Crossan, The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco: Harper and Row).

[8] Habermas, Evidences, 670. Wright concludes: “This remarkable and dramatic presentation contains several features which seem to me and many to others to mark it as a secondary production, dependent on the canonical sources and showing signs of later theological reflection” (Resurrection, 594).

[9] Nolland, Matthew, 1234.

[10] Wright, Resurrection, 638. “If Bultmann is right to say that the empty tomb was itself a late apologetic fiction, the rise of both stories of body-snatching and of counter stories to explain why such accusations were untrue is simply incredible” (639).