Tag: christianity

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.

Mark’s Titles for Jesus (Part 1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] Parentheses mine showing the genitive as objective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8] See next post.

What Did Jesus Mean by the Kingdom of God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The kingdom, according to Jesus:

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

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

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

[2] Stein, Mark, 72.

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

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

[5] Adapted from Turner, 44.

The Unforgiveable Sin: Can You Commit It?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]  Μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς Δαυίδ;

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

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

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

The 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.

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.

Strangers in the Old Testament

A social media post and an internet search are the genesis of this article. The post began, “Since Evangelicals love to quote Leviticus so much ,. . .” My first reaction was to laugh; I am an Evangelical and I have many preacher friends who are as well; none of us have quoted Leviticus that much. I no longer have my sermon files from thirty years of active pastoral ministry, but I probably did not preach out of Leviticus more than 10 times in those decades – maybe fewer than that. There might have been an occasional quote from the book, but there were not many of those either.

            The rest of post quoted Leviticus 19:33-34: “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you will love him as yourself.”  There was no comment from my social media friend, but I assumed then as well as now that the post was a jab at conservative Christians who support the current administration’s immigration policies. The post is meant to provide a biblical basis against those polices.

            Then came the internet search. I looked up “strangers in the Old Testament and immigration.” You can do the search yourself, but it suffices to note that there are a lot of articles and videos that deal with the topic. Many of them would equate today’s immigrant with yesterday’s stranger.[1]

            Is the biblical stranger the same as today’s migrant? Is my social media friend’s post right? Can Old Testament texts such as the one above from Leviticus be used to legitimately in the 2025 immigration debate? What should be the church’s response? In this article I explore both testaments and draw what I hope will be helpful conclusions.

The Old Testament ‘Stanger’

There are two categories of foreigners in the Old Testament. We will dispense with the first category quickly. One sees in Exodus 12:43, 45: “And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, ‘This is the ordinance of the Passover; no foreigner is to eat it . . .  A sojourner or a hired servant shall not eat of it.[2]’” Two words are used in the Hebrew text that are important to this study. The first is nekahr. The second is found in v. 45, toshav. The former are people not part of the covenant community. “Outsider” might be the best translation.[3] The latter is a temporary worker, without faith in Yahweh, who is excluded from the Passover unless he is circumcised.       

The nekahr, according to Block, were viewed as the spiritual antithesis of Israel. They are described in Ez 44 as “uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in v. 7 and barred from God’s sanctuary (v. 9). According to Lev 22:25, animal sacrifices acquired from outsiders were already defiled. Ezr 9 condemns intermarriage with foreign women of the land because it constituted a mixing of the holy seed.[4]

A third word used in the OT for an outsider is zar. The plural form, zarim, often signifies enemies of a nation. Examples can be found in Isa 1:7; 29:5; Jer 5:19; 30:8; 51:51; Eze7.21; and Hos 7:9.[5]

The second category and by far the most common word for “stranger/sojourner”[6] in the OT is ger. While the outsider had no rights in Israel, the gerim did, as will be shown below. The gerim most often served as day laborers or artisans (Deut 24:14-15; 29:11). They were either Egyptians who joined themselves to Israel at the Exodus (Ex 12:38, 48), or later, from occupants of Canaan, who aligned themselves with the nation (Rahab and Ruth are examples as was Urriah the Hittite).[7]

The term goes back to the patriarchs, who were the primary examples to Israel of the gerim.  Abraham sojourned to Egypt during a time of great drought (Gen 12:10).  He also spent time as a ger in the Negeb territory (20:1) and in the land of the Philistines (Gen 21:34). Isaac was a ger in Mamre (Gen 35:27). Jacob and his children were gerim in Egypt (Gen 47:4).

When Yahweh called Moses, He reminded him that when He established His covenant with the Patriarchs, He intended to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they lived as gerim (Ex 6:4). In fact, Israel’s relationship to the gerim was built upon the fact that they were once gerim in Egypt (Ex 22:21; 23:9; Lev 19:34; Deut 10:19).

Thus, the resident alien had many of the same rights and privileges as a native Israelite – provided they obeyed Yahweh and their males were circumcised. The gerim could share in the Sabbath rest (Ex 23:12; Deut 5:14). While no outsider (toshav) could eat the Passover, the gerim were welcome (Ex 12:45, 48). As Stuart observes, “It doesn’t matter whether a person is a native born Israelite, if he is not circumcised – no Passover for him. If he is circumcised, it would be disobedient not to take it.”[8] Gerim were to participate in The Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29).

The gerim could offer the various sacrifices the Law prescribed (Num 15:1-16). In fact, gerim offering sacrifices wrongly or who eat any blood were subject to the same judgement as the Israelite (Lev 19:8, 10; see also Nu 15:30-31). That is tantamount to blaspheming God and the judgement is being cut off from among God’s people. As Numbers 15:16 is clear: “There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you. (see also 15:29).[9]”

Beyond the Pentateuch, after the Battle of Ai, Joshua was commanded to gather “all Israel . . . the stranger as well as the native” for a covenant renewal (Jos 8:33). On Mount Ebal, he read the words of the law, both the blessings and curse, and, “There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel with the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who were living among them (v. 35).” It is obvious the gerim were considered part of the assembly.[10]

As part of the assembly, the gerim essentially had the same ethical obligations as Israel. For example, they were to stay away from the various sexual sins outlined in Lev 18 – “But as for you, you are to keep My statues and My judgements, and you shall l do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the stranger who resides among you . . . So that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it . . .” (vv. 26, 28). If those sins were committed, the gerim and the native Israelite would be cut off from among the people (v. 29).

The gerim were subject to God’s judgement if the Lord’s name was blasphemed (Lev 24:16). Also, Lev 24 makes clear, the resident alien was responsible to uphold the principle of justice found in vv. 17-22 often called lex talionis – the commensurate punishment for a crime.[11] Yahweh’s word is clear, “There will be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native; for I am the Lord your God” (v. 23).[12]

Israel did have obligations toward the gerim, and they are found throughout the Old Testament. In the larger context of Ex 22, the gerim are part of a group that includes widows, orphans, and the poor – “unprotected, easily mistreated groups in ancient times.”[13] Ex 22:21 calls upon Israel to never to wrong or oppress a ger. The reason? “For you were strangers (resident aliens) in the land of Egypt.[14]” Ex 23:9 takes the reason a step further, “since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger.” The word translated “feelings” is one that means “soul, spirit.” Israelites knew what gerim felt deep down about their circumstances. Yahweh makes similar commands in Lev 19:33-34. The prophet Ezekiel was clear that one reason for Israel’s judgement was “they have oppressed the poor and needy and have oppressed the stranger without justice” (22:29).

Even more actively, the Israelite was to ensure the gerim’s basic needs were met. Lev 19:9-10 state: “Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord your God.” Yahweh was their God; He has compassion for the gerim. Israel must as well. In fact, the gerim were such a concern for Yahweh that their status could conceivably rise higher than the Israelite (Deut 28:43-44).[15] Acts of compassion toward the gerim were evidence that Israel was obedient to God’s command to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Lev 19:18, 34).

The gerim were not just part of that present assembly of Israel, but they would also be part of the kingdom to come. In Ezekiel’s vision of the new kingdom there’s a new temple, a new way of life, and a new land – “And in the tribe with which the stranger resides, there you shall give him his inheritance, declares the Lord” (47:23). This is a remarkable promise, found nowhere else in the Old Testament.[16]  As Cooper states, “The new kingdom will preserve the laws of equity that eliminated discrimination against those residents who were proselytes or Jews by choice, making the new land a model for justice and righteousness.”[17] Isaiah’s vision is not a grand as that of Ezekiel, but he sees also that the resident aliens will attach themselves to the house of Jacob (14:1). Smith declares, “This prophecy should be connected to God’s grand eschatological transformation of the hearts of mankind and not a minor post-exilic fulfillment (Isa 2:1-4; 11:10-16; 19:18-25).[18] Motyer adds the gerim are the subject of God’s compassion, and there will be a true union between them and Israel in the new kingdom.[19]

More broadly and ultimately, the gerim will be part of God’s eschatological kingdom, but  all outsiders, no matter who they are or where they are from, will be welcome. Isaiah proclaims,

“Let not the foreigner (nekhar) say, ‘The Lord will certainly separate me from His people’ . . . Also, the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath and holds fast my covenant; even those I will bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar, for my house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples” (56.3, 6-8). 

The just will experience future salvation – both the native Israelite and the outsider – all those who obey Yahweh will experience His salvation. God will accept their worship. God’s Temple will truly be a place where all nations come to pray.[20] Essentially, there are no more strangers. There are no more resident aliens. There is one people of God.

The next post will deal with ‘strangers’ in the New Testament and draw conclusions.

[1] Just one example is Nancy Enright, “Welcoming the Stranger,” Today’s American Catholic, Sept. 28, 2023, https://www.todaysamericancatholic.org/2023/09/welcoming-the-stranger/. Accessed 7/22/2025. A handful of Scripture passages dealt with in this article can be found in this one, including Matthew 25:40, in which the ‘stranger’ is identified as a migrant (using today’s term).

[2]All Scripture quotations are from the NASB unless otherwise noted.

[3] Douglas J. Stuart, Exodus, NAC (Nashville: B&H), 308.

[4] D.I. Block, “Sojourner, Alien, Stranger,” in ISBE, 4:562.

[5] Block, “Sojourner,” 563.

[6] Stuart prefers the term ‘resident alien.’ As he points out, “Israel had no rights in Egypt, but they certainly were not strangers to the country. They were there 400 years (Exodus, 516).

 

[7] Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus (Nashville: B&H, 2000), 223.

[8] Stuart, Exodus, 310.

[9] Defiant sins were met with the karet – a judgement from God that would eradicate an offender’s line of descendants or deny a person’s life in the hereafter (R. Dennis Cole, Numbers, NAC [Nashville: B&H, 2000], 253.)

[10] The gerim were so much a part of the assembly that they could take up residence in a city of refuge (Jos 20:9). See also Deut 31:12; 2 Ch 30:25; Psa 146:9.

[11] Rooker, Leviticus, 297-8.

[12] See also Eze 14:7.

[13] Stuart, Exodus, 515.

[14] Parentheses mine.

[15] This was one of the many potential consequences of Israel’s disobedience to the Law outlined in Deut 28.

[16] F.B. Huey, Jr., Ezekiel, Daniel, Layman’s Bible Book Commentary, vol. 12 (Nashville: Broadman, 1983), 116. Huey is not sure whether the gerim in this verse are those who attached themselves to Israel and its God (proselytes), but he is right that this is “a bold and daring step forward in human relationships unknown to the ancient world.”

[17] Lamar Eugene Cooper, Sr., Ezekiel (Nashville: B&H, 1994), 417.

[18] Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1-39 (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 307.

[19] J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 141.

[20] Smith, 536.