Tag: bible

PERICOPE ADULTERAE: PREACH IT OR NOT?

I believe in preaching through books of the Bible. It often forces the preacher to take on texts and subjects otherwise avoided. Practically, the preacher does not have to think about what he is going to study and present on Sundays. He just goes from one passage to the next.

John is one of my favorite books. There are many ways to approach preaching from the fourth Gospel. The preacher can focus on well known passages only – a series might include the I am statements, John 3:16, the signs, and the Upper Room Discourse, for example.  The preacher can deal with themes such as faith, light/darkness, Jesus as the One sent by the Father, etc. A third way is to focus on characters found in the Gospel like Nicodemus, the woman at the well, and the beloved disciples (John).

I have done all the above at one time or another. My favorite way, however, is to preach John verse-by-verse – from 1:1 through 21:25. It takes longer to move through John this way, but it is impactful. A close examination of the entire Gospel changes lives – starting with the preacher.

There is a critical issue, however, when you decide to preach through John systematically. That is when you get to the end of chapter 7 and head to chapter 8. What are you going to do with the Pericope Adulterae (PA)?

The story of the woman caught in adultery is famous. It is so famous that I do not have to summarize it here. The powerful words from Jesus, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”[1] (8:7) warn us all about judgementalism and condemning others harshly. His response to the woman, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more” (8:11) gives us a sense of hope that even our sins can be forgiven by God.

But here is the problem. There is doubt whether the PA is part of John’s Gospel. If it is, there is no problem. It is inspired Scripture which should and must be preached. If it is not, however, the question of whether it is inspired Scripture hangs over the preacher like a dark cloud. Can a preacher legitimately teach the passage if he believes it is apocryphal?

Let us look again briefly at the external and internal evidence. Metzgar wrote, “The evidence for non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.”[2] You are hard pressed to find anyone disagreeing with him.[3]

When you look at the external evidence, it is hard to disagree with the overwhelming majority of scholarship.  

  • The story is missing from early, diverse manuscripts such as p66 75 א B L N T W X Y Δ Ɵ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193.
  • The passage is missing from the oldest form of the Syriac version as well as from the Sahidic and the older Bohairic manuscripts.
  • In the West, the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts.
  • No Greek Church Father quotes from or comments on the passage before the 12th century.[4]
  • It is a bit problematic as well that the pericope appears in different places in a few manuscripts – after 7:36; 7:44; and Luke 21:38.

What about the internal evidence? Despite the insistence of scholars like Kӧstenberger, it is not as conclusive.[5]

  • Some scholars point to 7:53-8:1, “And everyone went to his home, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives,” as an awkward transition from the discourses in chapter 7 to the PA. I do not see it that way. Jesus had been teaching in the Temple. At the end of the day the people were dismissed, Jesus possibly stayed in the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. Bethany was very close to the Mount of Olives. The pericope then picks up Jesus’ teaching the next morning (8:2). John inserts the fact that chapters 7 and 8 happen on separate days.
  • The argument that the PA interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12 is less than compelling. If one looks at John at this point with objectivity, the day of teaching in the Temple ends with division among the people about Jesus (7:40-44); then there is division among the religious leaders (7:45-52). Jesus’ teaching starts again the next morning early (8:2), and the religious leaders bring the adulterous woman to Him (8:3-11). After that incident, Jesus begins again to teach (8:12 ff). 8:12 can be an even stronger statement considering the PA, “I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness but shall have the light of life.” My disciples, Jesus was saying, will not condemn as they did (darkness), but instead will show mercy as I did (light).”
  • Scholars point to the PA’s vocabulary and style. It is true that in virtually every verse are found words nowhere else in John. But, as Kӧstenberger admits, context can account for several of the Johannine hapax legomena. Style arguments should never be a deciding factor about originality – for example, we can admit the Pastoral Epistles lack many Pauline features but are authored by the Apostle.

How does one weigh the evidence? The external evidence seems hard to overcome, but a reasonable explanation of the internal evidence can be given to support authenticity and its original location in John.

There are those who simply throw the PA out as inauthentic and therefore non-canonical. It is not inspired Scripture and should not be preached as such. Case closed.[6] Others, hold that the PA has “all the earmarks of historical veracity” as a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and was “subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places.”[7] Borchert calls the PA a text looking for a context and advocates for its Lukan and not Johannine origin. He believes it is inspired Scripture.[8]

So, what does a preacher do with this woman caught in adultery? It is what I call an exegetical situation. As one writer put it, “If the pericope . . . is an inspired text that has been inserted into an inspired text, then in spite of the text-critical issues surrounding it, the church may legitimately receive it and use it as sacred scripture.”[9] Practically, because of its long tradition in the church, it would be difficult to tell a congregation as you preached through John that you were skipping the PA. Some might want to elect a new pulpit committee, even though their Bible version probably has brackets around the passage and a note explaining its doubtful authenticity.

Yet that is exactly what I did when I preached through John. The inescapable conclusion based on external evidence is the PA is not part of the fourth Gospel. John did not write it. I would feel different if it could be proven it was a text looking for a context, but as much as I would love that to be true, the scholars who advocate for it simply cannot provide strong enough evidence to support that. Would I put it past the religious leaders to parade a woman caught in adultery before Jesus as the PA portrays it? No. The Gospels testify that they could very well do such a thing. Does it sound like Jesus to treat the woman with compassion and forgiveness? We do not have to know much about Jesus to say, “Absolutely!” Yet (and that is a big three letter word!) if the PA is inauthentic, then inspiration cannot be tied to it. You cannot preach apocryphal stories; you can only preach from the biblical canon.

The old cliché is good enough for ducks but not for inspired Scripture.

[1] Scripture quotes are from the NASB unless otherwise indicated.

[2] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1998), 187. Metzger’s quote prefaces his discussion of the external evidence.

[3] A voice crying in the wilderness, advocating for the pericope’s place in John, is Maurice Robinson. See for example, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of Nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and over One Hundred Lectionaries,” paper presented at the annual meeting of ETS, Orlando, FL, 1998.

[4] John Chrysostom, who never knew a Scripture he did not quote, is among the Greek Church Fathers silent on the pericope, as my dissertation shows, Stephen Dale Patton, “A Reconstruction and Evaluation of the Johannine Text of John Chrysostom,” Ph.D. diss. (Fort Worth: SWBTS, 2003).

[5] Andreas Kӧstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 246.

[6] Kӧstenberger, John, 248.

[7] Metzger, 188.

[8] Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 1996), 369-70. Borchert advocates for the PA’s canonicity.

[9] Scott J. Kaczorowski, “The Pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery: An Inspired Text Inserted into an Inspired Text?” JETS 61, no. 2 (2018): 336-7.

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.

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 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).

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!

Strangers in the New Testament

(Part II of Strangers in the Bible)

The New Testament is not silent about strangers/aliens/sojourners. The gerim’s faith in Yahweh prefigures the Gentile mission that begins in Acts and is central to Paul’s ministry. He repeatedly emphasized that there was no barrier between Jew and Gentile in Christ (Gal 3:28; Romans 3:22-30; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11). The Apostle writes to the Ephesians and reminds the Gentile members of the church that they were “separated from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world . . . But now in Christ . . . you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and are of God’s household . . .” (Eph 2:12-13a, 19).

One of the primary contributions of 1 Peter to NT theology is the idea that Christians, both Jew and Gentile, are ‘resident aliens’ in this world (1:1), sojourning in the present while looking forward to the future kingdom – their permanent home. Just as God’s people in the OT, whether Jew or Gentile, Christians are expected to conduct themselves in such a way as unbelievers may be drawn to Christ and “glorify God in the day of visitation” (2:11-20). Just as the gerim, Gentiles have all the rights, privileges, and, yes, the responsibilities of their Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ.

The only admonition from Jesus concerning strangers is found in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats found in Matthew 25:31-46. In words reminiscent of the prophets, Jesus was clear that those who are blessed by the Father and allowed into His eternal kingdom are those who have displayed His love and compassion upon the vulnerable – “For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited me in . . .” (Matthew 25:35). When asked by the righteous when they saw Him as hungry, or naked, or a stranger, the Lord’s reply: “Truly I say to you; to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it unto Me” (v. 40). The opposite will be true for those who refused to see the stranger[1] – “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (v. 46).

Blomberg is right in his observation that there are three basic human needs, apart from salvation – food, shelter, and companionship.[2]  Acts of mercy done for the “least of these” are acts of mercy done for Jesus and His sake. Preparation for the Day of Judgement is a heart full of Jesus that results in a life marked by compassion. Ultimately, fulfilling the two great commandments – loving God and loving others – are the proofs of salvation. Less than that is less than the Christianity that allows one to enter the eternal kingdom. One of those acts of mercy is hospitality to strangers/foreigners.

The most important question in the parable, and the one most often discussed, is the identity of “the least of these brothers of Mine.” The prevailing view today is that they are anyone in need, and salvation is predicated upon efforts to help them.[3] There are two problems with this view. First, it sets up a works salvation. While Jesus certainly helped the needy and expected His disciples to do so, this writer agrees with Keener that this view is not “exegetically compelling.”[4]

Second, that interpretation does not fit within the Matthean context. In this Gospel, a brother is either a biological or spiritual sibling. Spiritual brothers and sisters are fellow disciples who follow Jesus (5:22-24, 47; 7:3-5; 12:48-50; 18:15; 23:8; 25:40; 28:10).[5] In the broad sense, all human beings are related and are God’s children, but nothing like that appears anywhere in Matthew.

A related term, according to Turner, is the word translated “the little ones” (10:42; 18:6, 10, 14) – “whose repentance renders them humble disciples who no longer seek worldly power and status. One dare not cause the spiritual ruin of these little ones (18:6), and genuine forgiveness must occur if one sins against the other (18:21, 35).[6]

Christians are resident aliens in this world. They live counter-culturally and will encounter hardships as they bear witness to Christ around the world (Acts 1:8). Thus, they will need help. They are going to need the basics of life from time to time: among other things — food, clothing, and companionship. From whom will that help come? From the Romans? From unbelieving Jews? Help must come from others who are committed also to the Lord and His mission. While there is ample biblical evidence that believers are to show compassion to others, no matter who they are (Micah 6:8 comes to mind), the interpretation this writer advocates is more in line with the Matthean context.[7] Believers are to show hospitality to other believers – especially the stranger.

The stranger in this parable reminds one of the gerim. They were believers in Yahweh, who were committed to obeying His word. They were considered a vulnerable class. They would encounter hardships, and Israelites were to provide help. Their responsibilities to the gerim are outlined above. Those responsibilities closely resemble those found in Jesus’ parable: feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, provide hospitality to the stranger, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and the prisoner.

Conclusion

In this post (both parts), the writer has shown the gerim were resident aliens, proselytes of Israel’s religion. The Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch, teaches they had both rights and responsibilities. As members of the assembly, they had the right to worship just as any native born Israelite. They had the responsibility to obey Yahweh’s law. If they failed, the gerim were subject to the same judgement as Israel. The gerim would be part of the eschatological kingdom to come.

Israel did have obligations to them. As the passage in Leviticus 19 commands – they were to love the gerim as themselves. They are not to love them just because they are human beings and poor ones at that; they were to love them because the gerim were brothers and sisters in the faith.

The New Testament survey shows the gerim’s faith prefigured the church’s Gentile mission. The Apostle Peter was clear that all Christians are resident aliens in this temporary home, anxiously awaiting their eternal one. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, the strangers are fellow believers who would need hospitality and companionship along the way for at times the road would be hard to travel, especially as one is on mission for Christ’s sake.

Let us finish where we began. My social media friend’s post was intended to be critical of current immigration policies. That is unsound hermeneutically. The internet search led to articles in which strangers were equated as today’s migrants. That position is exegetically flawed. In the Bible, strangers (gerim) are proselytes to Israel’s faith in the Old Testament and Christians in the New Testament. All Christians have the same rights and responsibilities in Christ. They are all resident aliens in a hostile world.

One can be on either side of today’s immigration debate; it is America, and each person has the inalienable right to hold either opinion. There can and should be healthy debate, however, that debate cannot include the stranger passages in the Bible. Those are about believers. They are not about those who cross the border in the United States. A country and the church are two different institutions. The former can make any laws it wants about citizenship and how to go about it. The church makes no distinction between people groups — God sees us all as sinners in need of His grace and once a Chirstian, as part of His family.

The church’s primary responsibility, therefore, is not debate but evangelism. That responsibility is to all people no matter where they live or whose border they crossed. Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:18-19). This ministry of Jesus, to proclaim the Gospel in the power of the Spirit, is ours (Acts 1:8). It is not church’s responsibility to involve itself in immigration politics but proclaim the gospel to all, citizens and migrants, because without Christ people are poor, captive, blind, and downtrodden. It is the favorable year of the Lord; the Great Commission demands the church proclaim that to every corner of our country and, indeed, to the remotest parts of the earth.

[1] One is reminded here of what Jesus said to Saul of Tarsus: “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5).

[2] Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 1992), 377.

[3] David L. Turner, Matthew, BECNT (Grand Rapids: 2008), 604. See footnote 1.

[4] C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eeerdmans, 1999), 604-5.

 

[6] Turner writes, “In Jesus’s radically egalitarian community, status and prestige are out of place, since all his disciples are siblings in the same family (20:20-28; 23:8-10), Matthew, 606.

[7] A major hermeneutical rule is context determines meaning.