StevePattonOnline

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 sa^ms 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:

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.
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).
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.
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.
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).

The Guard at the Tomb: Fact or Fiction?

Most New Testament critical scholars dismiss the historicity (most call it apologetic legend) of Matthew 27:62-66 – labeled by Aland as “The Guard at the Tomb.” In fact, it is barely discussed as they claim the account has a fictional flavor and, more importantly, it only appears in Matthew. The early church (usually) or Matthew is accused of making it up. Instead, I propose that this short paragraph plays an important part of the resurrection narrative that follows it, showing Jesus’ enemies even bear witness to the empty tomb.

In this post I’ll discuss the text and the next its historicity.

Text

62 The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate

63 and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’

64 Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.”

65 Pilate said to them, “You have ^cza guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can.”

66 So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard. (ESV)

v. 62-It’s interesting that the text describes the Sabbath as ‘after the day of Preparation.’ Why is it described that way? Perhaps because this was no ordinary Sabbath and it was Passover. Whatever the reason, the chief priests and Pharisees are before Pilate. They would have to stay in the courtyard so not to be rendered unclean by Pilate’s residence.[1] Some commentators point out the irony of the Pharisees’ presence, given their strong belief in a bodily resurrection.[2] Yet, their hatred of Jesus is stronger than any theological stance.

V 63-There’s always discussion about how the religious leaders knew about Jesus’ prediction about rising again. That is easy – in Matthew 12, the Pharisees and scribes demand a sign from Jesus (v. 38). He responds: “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (vv. 39-40). Thus, one of Jesus’ predictions of resurrection was made in their hearing. His other predictions (16:21; 17:23; 20:19) likely would have been well known among his followers and could have filtered down to the religious leaders. Something else one might consider is why couldn’t Judas have told them?[3] However they learned about it, there is more irony in the fact they remember Jesus’ words more clearly at this point than did his disciples.

V. 64-The religious leaders request that Pilate secure the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body and proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead – making that deception worse than the first (probably His messianic claims). For them, a Messiah allegedly alive after dying a criminal’s death was more dangerous than anything Jesus did during his life. After Jesus’ resurrection, the guards, according to Matthew, are paid off and told to say the body had been stolen (28:11-15).

Ever since, as Blomberg states, “Stealing the body take the dubious honor of being the oldest alternative to faith in the risen Christ . . . even though it is one of the least plausible alternatives . . . Ironically, had the disciples wanted to steal the body they had the opportunity before this meeting. Besides it’s clear from the Gospel accounts that the disciples were in no mood for such a daring act.”[4]

v. 64-Pilate gives the order. In this verse one deals with the only exegetical issue in the pericope. The verb Ἔχετε can be understood in two ways. It can be translated as an indicative (you have a guard’) or as an imperative (‘have [take] a guard’). So, who will guard the tomb? Is the guard Roman or Jewish? It is likely Roman. The religious leaders did not need Pilate’s permission for their own guards to watch the tomb. They did need his permission to use Roman soldiers. The word ‘soldiers’ in 27:27 refers to Romans, and it appears from the next chapter that the guards answer to Pilate (28:11-14). While it really makes little difference about the guards’ identiy, context seems to help one lean toward a guard made up of Roman soldiers.

The Gospel of Peter takes the guard as Roman; the centurion is named Petronius.[5]

Vv. 65-66 – Pilate gives the order and the tomb is secured, sealed by the soldiers. That made it impossible for anyone to enter the tomb while the guards slept.

[1] Grant Osborne, Matthew, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 1059.

[2] For example, John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1236.

[3] So Leon Morris, Matthew, PCNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 731-2.

[4] Craig Blomberg, Matthew, NAC (Nashville: B&H Academic, 1992), 424. For an in-depth discussion see Gary Haberman, On the Resurrection: Refutations (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2024).

[5] Gos. Pet., 8:31. According to this account, the guards used seven seals after rolling the stone in front of the entrance (8:33). Whether the Gospel of Peter can be used as a parallel source for the Matthean account is discussed in the next post.

Which Son Is the Right Son?

Recently my class on the Gospels and Acts studied Jesus’ parables. The assignment was to take a parable in Luke and deal with it from various angles to determine meaning. Usually, students choose one of two parables – The Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. The reason these two parables far and away are popular for my students is these are the ones they’ve heard the most – either in sermons or Bible studies. This post deals with the Prodigal Son. Students (and most preachers for that matter) usually focus on one son over the other when they preach from Luke 15:11-32. Is that focus warranted. I would say no.

Let’s consider the context of the parable first. Luke lays that out in vv. 1-3. Tax collectors and sinners drew near to Jesus so they could listen to Him. The religious leaders were critical of Jesus: “This Man receives sinners and eats with them.”

Jesus deals with that criticism by telling three parables. The first two, the Parable of the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, essentially teach the same thing – Heaven rejoices when one sinner repents (vv. 7, 10).

The third parable, most often referred to as the Parable of the Prodigal Son follows. You know the first part of the story well – The father’s younger son wants his inheritance, goes out into the world (the far country) and wastes his possessions by ‘prodigal living’ (v. 13 NKJV).[1] After he spent all he had, there was a severe famine, so bad that the young man resorted to feeding pigs, a dishonorable occupation as pigs were unclean animals according to the Law (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8). His situation does not improve; in fact, it gets worse (v. 16).

In his desperation, the young man ‘comes to himself’ decides to back to his father’s house. His words are poignant, “I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants’” (vv. 18-19)

The story now turns to the father. What will be his reaction? How will he handle his younger son’s return? Breaking all protocol, the father runs to his son, hugged him, kissed him, and told his servants to prepare a feast, “For this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (v. 24).

The elder son becomes Jesus’ focus in v. 25. When he learns his brother returned and his father is preparing a feast in his honor, he becomes angry and refused to attend the feast. Once again, the father takes the initiative, approaches his son, only to hear complaints. The elder son reminds the father of his faithfulness to him and no party was ever thrown for him. “But as soon as this son of yours came, who has devoured your livelihood with harlots, you killed the fatted calf for him” (v. 30).

The father had a ready reply. He affirmed his elder son’s faithfulness (v. 31), and as for the younger son, “It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found” (v. 32).

The parable ends. Often Jesus provided a ‘moral to the story’ but not this time. His listeners had to wonder, what will the elder son do?

I interpret parables as restrained allegories. Not every detail of a parable means something else, but one can take the main characters of a parable and usually see spiritual principles. There are three characters here: the younger son, the father, and the elder brother. All three take us back to the context – the why Jesus spoke the parable in the first place. The younger son represents the sinners who were drawing near to Jesus to hear him. The father is obviously God the Father. The elder son represents the self-righteous religious leaders who were critical of Jesus’ fellowship with sinners. In this parable, then, Jesus goes a step further than the first two do. He challenges the self-righteousness of the religious leaders.

The spiritual principles – (1) Sinners are to repent, and go the Father, who (2) will accept them with joy. (3) Instead of self-righteousness, others are to accept repentant sinners just as the Father does – with joy.

Why are we left hanging? Would the religious leaders repent and accept sinners who come to the Father? Or, will they continue in their self-righteousness? Jesus was giving them a chance for their own repentance. We know only a few of them responded correctly (Nicodemus, for example). When I’ve preached or taught this parable, I’ve always said self-righteous religious people represent the elder brother. Will they hoard the gospel for themselves, or will they seek the lost and be joyful when one comes to repentance?

More often than not, my students, like most preachers, center upon the younger son, but there are two prodigal sons in the parable. One comes to himself. We don’t know about the other one. Preachers should make sure they pay attention to the elder son as much as they do the younger. Both sons provide strong preaching points.

[1] “Wild living” (NIV) “Reckless living” (ESV)

Interpreting a Synoptic Passage

Interpreting a Synoptic passage is a challenge. Let’s take for example Jesus’ plucking of grain on the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; and Luke 6:1-5).

Order

Mark and Luke follow the same general order — the fourth in a series of controversies with the religious leaders. Matthew places the episode at the first of a series of controversies where the primary issues are confrontation, rejection, and the need for a response. The passage is placed between two teaching sections (chapters 10, 13).

Text

Most of the differences in the narratives are incidental and stylistic than substantial.

Major differences

Matthew 12:5-7 –> Matthew is a Jewish Gospel so the additions found in these verses can be explained as a concern for Jewish issues.

Mark 2:26 –> Abiathar was not high priest — Ahimelech was according to 1 Samuel 21. Honestly, no good answer has been given to deal with this textual problem. Those who hold to Markan Priority all say that Matthew and Luke leave this reference out to improve on Mark. Could not Peter have simply preached it that way? “In the times of Abiathar? (I hold to the traditional view that Peter is the source behind Mark’s Gospel.)

Mark 2:27 –> Sabbath law was never meant to restrict human need — some argue that Matthew and Luke omit the saying because it seemed potentially in conflict with the unique authority attributed to the Son of Man. The idea is ‘son of man’ could be translated more generically, so that the saying would be in effect, “Human beings have control of the Sabbath.” But would that necessarily be so? The emphasis of Matthew and Luke could simply be that the writers wanted to make a strong Christological point. That could be done without Markan Priority. The saying, which was original, could be left out of Matthew and Luke for redactional reasons and left in by Mark because that’s how Peter related it.

Potential Explanation

Matthew was there and reports the essential voice of Jesus. He leaves out Mark 2:27 for redactional reasons. Mark reports the preaching of Peter, which includes the statements about Abiathar and v. 27. Luke, who certainly used Matthew as well as other sources, relates the story in his own words, leaving out Mark 2:27, perhaps for the same reason as Matthew. His sources, however, may not have included v. 27. Neither Matthew nor Luke includes the Abiathar incident. Matthew does not report it because it was not from Jesus. Luke does not because he does not know it.

ADDED NOTE: I’ve love dealing with the Synoptic Problem, and it is quite a PROBLEM!