This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Matt 1:18-25, NIV

I have hesitated to write this one (just because it includes a potentially significant shock), but it is, on the one hand, a good example of the “smoothing over the hard bits” tendency in our English translations; and on the other hand, a testimony to just how important dreams and other communications from God’s Spirit are in the successful execution of God’s assignments.

And as it happens, a planned execution is what has been papered over here.

Mary is betrothed to Joseph, and is found to be pregnant. Joseph is a just man and doesn’t want to expose her to public disgrace, so – as the English versions all say – “he had in mind to put her away quietly” or “to divorce her quietly”.

This ignores both the Greek and the context. Betrothed Jewish girls who lay with another man willingly (ie without screaming for help) were not divorced publicly or privately. They were stoned to death, in public. In Luke’s version, we hear the conversation between Gabriel and Mary, and her question: “how will this happen since I don’t know (in the sexual sense) a man?” What we don’t pick up is the implication of what Mary was saying ‘yes’ to; in her culture, extreme peril.

Let’s look at the Greek of verse 19 and 20:

Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν. ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ’ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων· Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου·

“Joseph her man (in this case as in ‘betrothed future husband’), being observant of custom (δίκαιος) but not willing to make a show of her, meant (which I suggest is best rendering of ἐβουλήθη, 3rd sg aor ind pass) to do away with (ἀπολῦσαι) her by stealth (λάθρᾳ). (While he was) planning (ἐνθυμηθέντος) these matters of his, behold a messenger (angel) of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying, “Joseph, son of David, don’t fear to take to yourself Mary your wife, for that which has been engendered / begotten / created in her is from Holy Spirit.”

So firstly, Joseph was observant of custom (meaning, as far as he could see, that Mary had to die) but he wasn’t willing to make a public show of her (which public stoning most certainly would have been). So he planned to have her done away with by stealth. We aren’t told how, or whether Joseph planned to do it himself; but clearly it could happen in those pre-CSI Miami days, and she and he would both be spared the shame (or at least that was his perspective).

But while he is making his plan, one of God’s messengers appears to him in a dream and does three things:

• He references Joseph’s descent from King David;
• He addresses Joseph’s fear of disgrace as an observant Jew; and
• He tells Joseph that the child conceived within Mary is from the Holy Spirit.

He then goes on to tell Joseph that Mary will give birth to a son, specifies His name (Yeshua, “the Lord saves”) and its relevance, ie that this child will save His people from their sins.

And here is the extremely relevant and widely applicable message of this passage: left to his own cultural and customary assumptions, (as it might be you or me and our cultural and customary assumptions and opinions, for example), the best Joseph could come up with is to kill his betrothed wife without putting her to shame.

High five, I don’t think.

But with a message from God, delivered in a dream, Joseph found a place to stand (son of David), a reason to take courage (don’t fear to act) and a reframing of his situation (the child in Mary is from the Holy Spirit). And a promise about God’s purpose: this is not just any child, but a son called Jesus who will save his people from their sins.

As far as we can tell, Joseph didn’t live to see Jesus fulfil His ministry, but he lived long enough to father Jesus’s many brothers and sisters with Mary, and in the meantime, protected God’s chosen one from Herod and others who meant to kill him.

Which was a good deal better than becoming the well intentioned man who killed God’s anointed; which is where his own instincts would have taken him.

So: how useful do you think Joseph’s dream was? And (assuming we would like to play our assigned parts in God’s plan rather than attempting to derail it), could we do with that kind of help, ever?

God’s word: don’t leave home without it.

“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the Bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
“‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Matt 25:26-30 NIV

The Parable of the Talents is a rich source of Kingdom truth (listen to or read John Bevere on the subject of multiplication, for example). I am zooming in on the end of the parable, to pick up on three bits of translation, two of which are small but significant and one of which could cause you to miss a major Key to to the Kingdom.

Does the Master call the servant “wicked and lazy”?

Πονηρὲ δοῦλε καὶ ὀκνηρέ can be translated that way, but only using both πονηρός and ὀκνηρός in their “and by extension, …” renderings – something to be used sparingly, if at all, in my opinion. So I would prefer “wretched (as in ‘oppressed by toils’) and shrinking”.

What’s the difference? Easy. If we are asked, “are you wicked and lazy”, most of us are unlikely to say “sure, that’s me!” But if instead we are asked, “is there are reason you hold back and fail to act as you should”, many of us will have a whole host of reasons why we have been oppressed by past circumstance and find it difficult to stand up and take decisive action – and that is exactly what this servant did. He listed the reasons why it was unreasonable for anyone to expect more of him than simply preserving the Master’s money. Especially since his Master was a notorious “hard man”.

If your training in life (or even in the Church) has led you to be a professional victim, it is definitely time to move on. Hard (harsh, even) as it may seem when you hear this, there are no excuses in the Kingdom; and for the simple reason that if you see and receive the Kingdom, excuses are the last thing you will need. And that is the warning Jesus is giving us here. The one talent servant sees himself as a victim, which leads in turn to his own failure and destruction.

The second “minor” translation issue is around the use of the word “worthless” in the NIV, as in “throw that worthless servant outside”. At the risk of splitting hairs, ἀχρεῖος is “useless” or “unprofitable”. I would argue we all have worth; the Master has assigned this servant to be thrown out on the grounds of failure to return a profit. Which again, is going to seem harsh if you don‘t already have a Kingdom mindset. I would merely underline that this is what Jesus said, so better to face it than smooth it over or try to explain it away.

Which brings us to the “big deal” issue: verse 29

“For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.”

The English of the NIV may already seem confronting, but actually the Greek has been significantly and unreasonably defused, and in a manner likely to rob many of the insight we all need.

The Greek is clear: τῷ γὰρ ἔχοντι παντὶ δοθήσεται καὶ περισσευθήσεται· τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἔχοντος καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ.

“For to the one having everything, it will be granted, and they will be made to abound, overflow, be much more” (English lacks a good equivalent of περισσεύω) “But the one not having, even what he has will be taken up away from him.”

So, despite what the NIV suggests, this is not about the difference between those who have something and those who have almost nothing. In the first place, it refers to the now ten talent servant and the still one talent servant. The former is described as having everything, the latter as having nothing. To the former – who already has everything – “it” will be given (the recovered talent presumably, but much more besides) and he will be made to abound. From the latter who has nothing, even what he has – the bare talent he kept buried for the Master – is being stripped away.

Now you may be saying, “but this isn’t fair!” If so, you need to seek until you find this truth. For some years I was struggling, not over this verse, but rather over the truth it encompasses. I was sitting under powerful Kingdom teaching, which was clearly true to Scripture and the words of Jesus – but I wasn’t seeing it work out as I expected in my own experience. I wasn’t the only one. But whenever someone said, “Pastor, I have done all this and it isn’t working…” he would say, “well that is your problem right there.” And it took years before I got it.

The Kingdom is first and foremost about what you know in your heart. Until your heart is in full agreement with what Heaven says, then it doesn’t much matter what you do. You will find yourself saying – and believing in your heart – that it just isn’t working. And you will be correct.

When though you realise that the finished work of Jesus (“it is accomplished!”, remember?) is exactly that, and that everything God has promised – healing, deliverance, guidance, and all that you need in order to pursue your assignment – is already signed, sealed and delivered as yours, then, and only then will you be able to walk out the Kingdom. If the Master entrusts you with 5 talents or 5 cities or whatever you choose to name, you will be able to multiply that and be made to abound because you already have everything.

On the other hand, for as long as you think you are still waiting endlessly for your unfair and hard Master to give you anything, then nothing is what you will have.

Which is precisely what Matt 25:29 tells you.

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

John 14:8-9, NIV

It is hard to avoid reading this episode in John without thinking “oh those disciples, just so slow…” On this occasion, I suspect it is we who are missing the point.

Especially when we read the subsequent verses, about Jesus being in the Father, and His words and His works, there is every reason for us to hear a religious message that is something like “you don’t realise how important I am, but I, Jesus, speak the very words of God to you. You are slow to recognise the magnitude of the privilege you enjoy in following me.” And I don’t think that is what is going on here.

The disciples knew that Jesus was good, more good than the best they could even imagine. There was no one they would rather spend time with. He only needed to hint at the fact He was about to leave them for them to be seriously thrown off balance.

But they were also Jewish men. They knew that when Moses went up Mt Sinai, God could only show His back to Moses for fear he would be destroyed otherwise. The people were told not to even touch the mountain, lest they be destroyed. And perhaps it is significant that it was Philip, at least a Greek speaker and possibly a convert or from a family of converts to Judaism, who had the courage to even make this outlandish and potentially fearful request. (Really Philip: show you the Father? You want to burn?)

What Jesus says in reply is the exact opposite of what we think it is.

He isn’t saying “You have seen me so you have caught a glimpse of the distant and unknowable God.” Nor is He saying “I am way more important than you realised”; instead He is saying “you know I am good, and the best friend any of you have ever had, and closer to you than a brother. Do you really not get it? The Father is all of that to you and more, because I and the Father are one.”

They aren’t being told that they have unwittingly caught a glimpse of the Father, as if He is a galaxy which is actually uncountable light years away. No: they have been working shoulder to shoulder with Him, and passing Him the fish and bread, and laughing at His stories.

So guys: whatever you thought was going on these last years, understand now that the Father is with you and for you; and He certainly isn’t mad at you. When you finally understand that your relationship with me IS your relationship with the Father, you will do all the works you have seen Me do – and a great deal more, because I am going to be reunited with the Father.

Show you the Father? Already done.

ὅπου ἐὰν ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί. Matt 24:28 SBL Greek NT

Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. Matt 24:28 NIV (RSV and others have “eagles”)

In the middle of Matthew’s version of what has been called “the Synoptic Apocalypse”, we have this strange statement. Or at least we do, in English. I am not sure it is quite such a non sequitur in the Greek.

Jesus has just spoken about deception, and instructed His disciples to not believe it, nor to act upon it, when they hear reports of The Christ being “out there” or “in here”. The reason is simple: when He returns, no one will be left wondering. It will be visible and obvious. Have you seen lightning in the east illuminate the sky all the way to the west? Yes, just like that. You will not be left wondering. Wailing, possibly.

And then this verse. What is He saying? Is He really suggesting, in the very next breathe, that His lightning-like arrival will be like a dead body being attacked by birds of prey? And who is which in this picture? Clearly Jesus is not the dead body, but are we?

I think it is rather more simple than that. This is a continuation of His theme to the effect that lots of people will be very deceived and likely to believe things that simply are not true. We just need to nail down a couple of words to understand what is going on.

Firstly, πτῶμα. Literally it is a fall, and hence some kind of calamity. In some contexts it is indeed a (fallen) body, but usually with other qualifiers, such as “a fallen Greek”, or whatever. So let’s go with a fall or calamity for now.

What about the ἀετοί?

It is indeed “the eagles”, but we have to remember that for the Greeks, and therefore their language, their primary interest in eagles was not a taxonomic approach to ornithology. It is almost certainly true that ἀετός was less “a bird of the genus, Aquila” and more “a bird of omen”. So the word is often simply “omen”.

So here’s how I would render this verse: “wherever it should happen that there is a calamity, the ‘birds of omen’ will gather together.”

(It’s true, of course. If I remember correctly, Martin Luther was convinced the world was about to end because the River Oder had burst its banks for the third year in a row. Before you laugh, just check what you have been saying…)

In other words, Jesus is saying to His disciples, “whenever some terrible thing happens, people will read it as an omen of the end; but don’t you waste your time or get distracted doing that. You will know when I turn up. You will see me – and so will all the tribes on earth. And in the meantime, make sure you are executing your assignment, faithfully.”

A word in season, perhaps. And do have a blessed Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law —
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.“

Matthew 10:34-39 (NIV)

A much earlier post (“Follow me, Soldier” – Dec 2020) on this blog dealt with one element of our passage, but in its Matt 16:24 version: “taking up the cross”. I suggested there that “cross” is wrong in this context, and this passage in Matt 10 supports that view. But to begin at the beginning…

Here’s how I think we might be reading this passage:

“You think I am bringing peace, but actually I am going to smite the earth with the sword and cause family divisions, because unless you love me more than your family, you are not worthy of me. If you don’t carry your own cross around, you aren’t worthy of me. Only by dying can you live.”

And here’s what I think we ought to be seeing:

“You are expecting my coming to usher in, or build, peace; but actually I am tossing a sword your way. And as Micah prophesied, the best of you is like a brier patch so the result of God visiting you is you fall into confusion and households fall apart. You already know you need to love your father and mother, but when it comes to the pinch, if you choose them over me and my call (to pick up the sword I tossed you), you are not worthy of me. If you fail to pick up your gear and follow me, you are not worthy of me. If you cling on to what you think is your life, you will lose it, but if you let go so you can follow, you will find fullness of life.”

I am not sure whether that seems a little different to you, but it does to me. So let’s unpack that a little.

Firstly, I don’t think Jesus is saying that He has come in order to divide households. Instead He is saying that this will be one consequence of His coming.

This is very clear if we read the passage in Micah 7 from which He quotes directly:

The best of them is like a brier,
the most upright worse than a thorn hedge.
The day God visits you has come,
the day your watchmen sound the alarm.
Now is the time of your confusion.
Do not trust a neighbor;
put no confidence in a friend.
Even with the woman who lies in your embrace
guard the words of your lips.
For a son dishonors his father,
a daughter rises up against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies are the members of his own household.
But as for me, I watch in hope for the LORD,
I wait for God my Savior;
my God will hear me.

Micah is clear: it is the bankrupt character of the people which causes them to be thrown into confusion when God visits them, not God.

We have a lot of latitude when translating verse Matthew 10:34

Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν· οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν.

That is because βάλλω, “I throw” covers a wide range of meanings. “Cast” covers most of the mainstream ones, which tend to ‘the military’ (cast a spear, cast a stone, cast the anchor); but it is used in a loose (possibly debased over time) sense as well, as in “bring”, “build” and so on. So I think we can say something like my version above – maybe “don’t think I have come to bring in (a reign of) peace; I haven’t come to bring peace but to cast a sword.” And yes, you could also say βάλλω can be used to say “smite with the sword” – unfortunately, the required preposition is missing, so that won’t fly.

But what we can tell is that tossing, or bringing, a sword is the equivalent of “the day God visits you” in the Micah passage, because in both cases the effect is the same. We may assume that Jesus means “I am lobbing a sword at you”, but I think “to you” is the only option, thanks to the rest of the passage.

If we leap ahead to v 38, we see the reference to picking up a cross. I won’t repeat all that I said in the earlier post, but there is no evidence that the people of Judaea ever once saw anyone carrying a cross, nor part of one, until they saw Jesus do so. What they did see, probably on a daily basis was a Roman soldier with a pole (τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ) over his shoulder, and loaded with all his baggage and utensils. This pole, or in Latin, furca, was one of the marks of a soldier on active service. And I believe it is this, rather than a cross, that Jesus was referencing. Now of course, when it came to it, everyone would see Jesus carrying His burden on His “furca”, also; the one upon which He would be nailed and die. But He wasn’t expecting anyone to guess that or make the connection ahead of time, nor was He setting execution as the norm for His followers.

So where does that leave us with love of Father and Mother, Son and Daughter? If we read carefully, we will see that Jesus is not here telling us to do anything other than love them all; BUT (and it is a big BUT) when it comes to taking up the sword, and picking up the furca and letting go of the little life you were trundling along in, and instead following Jesus: if you choose those loves over the love of Jesus then indeed, you aren’t worthy of Him.

And, Jesus knows, this is going to cause big trouble, division and even full-on warfare within households. Not by His intention, but not everyone reacts well when a family member chooses to follow Jesus over their love and obligations to family.

Although, of course, that doesn’t have to be the end of the story for those left behind.

So what is the sword? What, in fact, is the warfare Jesus calls us to? Not against people. Never. Quite the opposite; God is all about freeing people who are captive to His enemy. There is a section on this in the Seeing the Kingdom book; but for now, enough to say that this is about seeing and picking up the assignment God has given you, and learning how to persevere in it, so that you take ground and deny it to the Enemy.

So no, Jesus isn’t saying He came in order to break up happy homes.

Matt 6:31-33

So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

If you have read the Seeing the Kingdom book, you will know I cover the beginning of the (so-called) Sermon on the Mount. You will also know that I don’t think we read this correctly – for a whole number of reasons. Here’s one more…

It is easy – and most commentators have seen this – to see this three chapter block as comprising a series of somewhat-connected but largely stand-alone statements, often one or two verses to a discrete “thought”.

To link the title of this post to what I have just suggested, I would say, “yes, you are seeing the trees; but you are missing the wood. And, by the way, I think you have mis-identified most of the trees too. So if you do glimpse the wood, you will probably be off on that, too.”

Let’s start with the “tree” of Matt 6:31-33.

Hands up if you think this means “don’t be ambitious for wealth; instead, serve in your local church and earn credit with God through that faithful service, and you will be taken care of (in some largely unspecified manner, time and place).”

I am hoping it sounds stupid when I put it that way; my only problem is that I feel like I have heard this at least implied or understood, if not overtly spoken out, and many times over the years. I have certainly heard people trying not to express disappointment with God when their faithful service ( = seeking His Kingdom) doesn’t seem to have been appreciated on earth or in heaven.

So what is it all about, then, if not what I said above?

Verse 31 and 32 pose no real problem; they are simply a statement of the problem. “Don’t worry, saying “what shall we eat, what shall we drink, what shall we wear?” For all these things the nations seek after; for your Heavenly Father knows you have need of these things.”

What is verse 33 about then? First let us state the obvious. If you worry about and pursue these things like the nations, then your experience will be like the nations also; that most people find that if they earn 100,000 (dollars, roubles, pesos, whatever), then their expenses will turn out to be 105,000. Lack is what this world runs on, and this world’s ruler likes to keep it that way. The few who make it into the dollar stratosphere are curiously lacking in peace about it; most often they end up spending their pile on (unsuccessfully) attempting never to die.

So what does Jesus say we should do instead? Well, it is hidden in plain sight.

ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν.

Seek first the Kingdom and the legal justice of Him (i.e. His Kingdom and legal justice), and all these things will be given to you in addition (i.e. to His Kingdom and legal justice).

The small problem first: we are religious so we translate δικαιοσύνην as righteousness in a religious sense. I am not sure God bothers with that stuff. He looks upon a world in which His children gave legal authority to His enemy by their treason; all of what we call “salvation history” is about getting the legality back so that He can rescue those same children. Even as “righteousness”, δικαιοσύνην means legally justified, i.e. in the right, not guilty and so on, first and foremost.

So the big problem is the one I wrote the book about, namely that we seem to have no idea what the Kingdom actually is. But a Kingdom is a dominion within which a King rules; and “rules” implies a system of laws. Back to legal justice, in fact.

So Matthew 6:33 is telling us that until we actively seek out the Kingdom and its system of legality we will be like the nations; but once we understand how God’s Kingdom operates, and acquire that, we will find that we have – within that legal system – access to everything we need.

Let me say it again. Until you understand how God’s Kingdom operates, of course you will have to operate under the alternative, which is the kingdom of lack. You have an open invitation to enter God’s Kingdom; so why wouldn’t you? But yes, you will find you can’t just wander in, daydreaming; there are things you will need to understand in order to live and operate in that Kingdom.

So that is the tree. What is the wood?

Simply that most of what comes before Matt 6:33 in the “Sermon” is a statement of the problem we all face (the same one even Covenant Israel faced); and from there on, pretty much everything to the end of Chapter 7 is keys to that same Kingdom. The Kingdom is the answer.

But like so much of Jesus’ teaching to the crowds, things are deliberately veiled. If we are used to hearing “thou shalt not”, then that is how we hear all of this; for example in Matt 7:1 we hear “thou shalt not judge” instead of hearing the positive keys to managing how others are able to relate to us and how blessing is able to flow to us, in the Kingdom.

But perhaps that is another post…

Matt 4:1-11

In the previous post, I commented that Jesus didn’t show up on Satan’s ‘radar’ between the point where Herod’s attack was thwarted until He is baptised and the Spirit of God alights on Him.

And at that point, Satan still doesn’t know just what the plan is (he wouldn’t know that until after Jesus was killed).

But: he tries to find out.

We read the ‘temptations’ as if they are just that – Satan trying to tempt Jesus to do the wrong thing. I doubt it; even Satan isn’t that optimistic. He knew who Jesus was, so wasn’t particularly expecting Him to fall into the very obvious elephant traps he had set; but he was hoping to get Jesus to give the game away.

Instead, Jesus does what we should learn to do: answered with truth to silence Satan; without disclosing the whole truth. Everything to do with God’s assignment in your life should be on a “need to know” basis. That is what Jesus modelled.

So let’s look at the three traps, the three truths – and the three bits Jesus didn’t feel any obligation to share!

First ‘temptation’: “If you are the Son of God, speak in order that these stones become breads.” (v3)

What Satan is hoping to hear: “You know very well who I am, and you are going to see me do much greater things than simply turn stones into bread; I will… [insert list of things Jesus is planning to do, which Satan can then work to counteract and smother].”

What Jesus does say: “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone but upon every spoken thing proceeding from the mouth of God.'” In other words, “bread is less important than what God says, so you are silenced.”

What Jesus doesn’t say but will demonstrate: “In my Father’s Kingdom there is answer for bread and every other thing that His Children need, and I will teach my disciples how to access all this” – to the point where in Matthew 16 He will rebuke His disciples for being so slow to realise that bread is no longer a problem for them.

Second ‘temptation’: “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down (from the pinnacle of the Temple, where everyone can see you), for it is written [in Psalm 91 that the angels will protect you].”

What Satan is hoping to hear: “Seriously, you are still pretending you don’t know me? Wait until you see … [insert another list, this time of dangers that Jesus will overcome, to the astonishment of the crowds, and yes, Satan will make sure the crowds are somewhere else.]”

What Jesus does say: “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'” In other words, “you want to quote Scripture out of context? Sure, I can do that too, and trump yours, so you are silenced on that one too.” (If you don’t understand, you might want to check out the context of Psalm 91 on the one hand – it is about a man being protected in and around his tent – and Deuteronomy 6:16 and of Exodus 17:1-7 on the other; the latter is actually about people doubting God’s goodness in a very tight place, not leaping into danger from a place of safety.)

What Jesus doesn’t say, but will demonstrate: “I will of course be teaching my disciples the authority they have in the Kingdom to shut down all your nonsense and turn back every attack you launch – not to mention how to set people free from illness, infirmity and insanity and every bondage in which you have enmeshed them.”

Third ‘temptation’: Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour (i.e. their wealth) and says “all this I will give you, if you will bow down and worship me.” (Luke adds, correctly, Satan saying that the kingdoms and their splendour have been given to him, Satan. Jesus does not contradict him).

What Satan is hoping to hear: “See, you do know who I am and what I have come to reclaim, and you can’t stop me…” to which Satan will silently reply, “you might be surprised how hard I can make that for you, thanks for the heads up…”

What Jesus does say: “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'” In other words, “I have given you the answers you are legally owed, as the ruler of this world; but my worship and my service are not yours and never will be. So go.”

What Jesus doesn’t say, but will demonstrate on the Cross: “I have a plan to reclaim all the Kingdoms, their splendour and their people; one which would never occur to you. Actually it will depend on your unwitting help for its execution, so I will not be sharing any details with you.”

Or as Paul said: “None of the rulers of this age understood the plan of God, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.”

So Jesus is put to the test by Satan (who has the legal right to do so); answers each of his questions with unquestionable truth; but does so without leaving Satan one iota the wiser, or with anything to work with.

Am I saying that Satan has the right to question us, and should we therefore engage with his questioning?

No; and no, in that order.

As citizens of the Kingdom of God, we are no longer subject to him. You don’t owe him an answer, and it would be a serious lack of wisdom to try. He can only succeed by getting his thoughts into your head, so don’t give him a hearing. Shut him down with the shield of faith: “That’s a lie, God says [insert God’s word to and over you]! Be silent”

So to recap, Jesus blocks Satan from learning anything; but for us, yes, in His Father’s Kingdom there is:

• everything we need;
• protection through the exercise of the authority we have; and
• a plan to recover the kingdoms of this world and all that pertains to them.

The kingdom of the world has become
the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Anointed,
and he will reign for ever and ever.

(Revelation 11:15)

Matt 3:15

Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν· Ἄφες ἄρτι, οὕτως γὰρ πρέπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην. τότε ἀφίησιν αὐτόν.

John is baptising in the Jordan and issues a warning, namely that the one coming after him is more powerful and more worthy than he himself is, and that this one will gather His wheat into His barn and burn the chaff. As Malachi would say, “but who can endure the day of his coming?”

So John is a little perplexed when the very one of whom he has spoken arrives to be baptised. “I need to be baptised by you, and do you come to me?”

So how does Jesus reply? It is there in the English and Greek at the top of this post. But what exactly do we think “it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness” even means? Are we, for example, saying that there is something missing from Jesus’ own personal righteousness? That if He doesn’t do this He will be unrighteous?

Once again we see the power and danger of religious language. It takes on a life of its own. “Fulfilling all righteousness” is obviously one of those important mystical things that we don’t need to understand, so we just use it as if it must mean something.

And clearly it has some effect – immediately after He is baptised and comes up out of the water, the Spirit of God descends on Him like a dove and a voice from heaven speaks. But what is it, this fulfilling of righteousness?

Context first. Jesus is born in obscurity but the fact that He is born King of the Jews gets attention from Herod and all Jerusalem when Magi turn up from the East, asking for directions. Once He is on the radar, there is a plan to kill Him, thwarted when an angel warns Joseph and he takes his wife and child out of the country to Egypt. Herod loses the scent.

First question: do you think Satan knew where Jesus was after Joseph acted on the angel’s warning?

If you think Satan is all-knowing, you give him too much credit. And – since he didn’t arrange to have Jesus killed in Egypt – you also think he shows restraint, against his own interests. Herod lost the trail, but so did Satan. For a brief moment Satan was aware that trouble had arrived, but he lost track of the danger.

When was he next aware of Jesus’ presence? After the Spirit alighted on Jesus. At that point, Satan’s radar screen lit up like you wouldn’t believe, with all the warning klaxons going full blast. (A friend of mine has commented that when the anointing on you increases, you show up on Satan’s radar screen; that would appear to be in line with what we see in this passage.)

When the Spirit lead Jesus up into the desert to be put to the test by the Devil, why do you think the Devil accepted the invitation? Because he knew who Jesus was and that He had to be a huge threat (which – think about it – might have been a really good reason to stay away) – but he still didn’t know how or why and (here’s why he didn’t stay away) he was desperate to try to find out what was going on. (Not that the penny would actually drop until after Jesus was killed).

So now we have some context, back to our question. Jesus has been off the radar for at least three decades. He is about to – quite deliberately – light up Satan’s threat receivers; so what is fulfilling all righteousness about?

Here is a rendering of our verse which I think is closer to the mark:

“Let it go for now, for thus it is clearly seen of us that we have fully complied with the legal process.”

And ‘be clearly seen (or conspicuous)’, ‘fully comply’, and ‘legal process’ are all good renderings of πρέπον, πληρῶσαι and δικαιοσύνην, respectively. So it is not about earning a pass on righteousness; it is part of the Father’s plan and which Jesus is following.

What are we saying here? Isaiah had prophesied, and John was fulfilling, the preparation of a highway for the Lord in the wilderness. John’s baptism was for repentance (true) but also to signify that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand (also true, but we seem to forget this bit). Did Jesus need to repent? No. So why the baptism? Why the need to take part in this legal process Himself?

In order to – very deliberately – step out onto the stage and announce His presence.

This was the point where (to speak in movie language) the evil overlord is mocking the futile attempts of his victims to hold on to hope, when suddenly a figure steps out of the shadows, lets the point of his great sword hit the wooden floor with a thud, and is revealed as the true and longed-for King. And he has been there, right under the evil overlord’s nose all this time, unrecognised.

Jesus was baptised to declare that the Kingdom really had arrived; because here is the King. He hasn’t taken any shortcuts, He is fully human, and now He models what the Kingdom will be; fully present on earth as a man, baptised with water and with the Spirit of God.

And from this time forth, He is on the radar, fully visible – and fully street legal. There is nothing Satan can say to cry foul; the Son of God has quite legally become the Son of Man, and therefore can operate within Satan’s territory. And that still doesn’t mean Satan has a clue what is going on. He just knows he is in trouble.

(You can see https://seeingthekingdom.com/2021/04/20/authorised/ for a post on what the voice from heaven was really saying; and the next post will look at the so-called Temptations.)

Mark 6:13 / James 5:14

They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.

Mark 6:13, NIV

This verse sticks out like a sore thumb (or possibly like a well bandaged and anointed sore thumb). Why?

Jesus has given the 12 authority over the unclean spirits (τῶν πνευμάτων τῶν ἀκαθάρτων), given them instructions on what to take and what not to take, how to behave and where to stay; and then sent them out two by two. They go out, preach that people should repent, drive out many demons and… anoint sick people with oil and healed them.

My question is this: where did Jesus ever anoint anyone with oil in the process of healing them? Put muddy spit on their eyes, yes; but oil, never. Nowhere else in the gospels do we hear of oil in connection with healing. Yes, in Luke, the Good Samaritan puts oil and wine on the man’s wounds; but that is basic first Century first aid, not Kingdom healing.

So why did the disciples do this?

It looks so much like a later elaboration, that I treble checked for any textual variations. None are listed anywhere I can see, meaning that all our manuscript witnesses agree. If it was a later addition, it wasn’t much later.

Of course, as I have acknowledged at the top of this post, there is also the question of James 5:14, the only other place where the New Testament mentions anointing with oil in the context of healing. Is this the same thing, and if so, where does it come from? All we know for sure is that no word of Jesus is recorded on this.

After some days of rather disturbed puzzlement, I think I have arrived at a reading of this that fits with what I understand of the Kingdom; which I offer in case it helps anyone else. I would say fundamentally we are looking at two separate issues, even if they have some overlap at the edges; and I don’t think either should make us think that oil and anointing has a central role in healing. Like everything else in the Kingdom, healing is a matter of becoming fully convinced that what Heaven says is true.

Let’s start with Mark. Jesus gives them no instruction to anoint with oil, and yet they do. What is going on?

Firstly, I think we can be fairly certain they didn’t do this as a fall-back. “Not sure we can just heal people like the Master does; I know, let’s use olive oil!” Not very convincing. So I suspect that Jesus did instruct them to do this. Why is it not listed in the instructions He gave the disciples? For several reasons, one of which would have been so that we didn’t get the idea that anointing with oil was normative in healing. (In passing I would also note that Jesus never prayed for anyone to be healed, but that hasn’t stopped us from adopting both oil and praying for the sick as core practices. Jesus just healed people, and taught His disciples to do the same.)

The main reason I think, is this: Jesus was forever training His disciples for their future ministry; while also ensuring that Satan had zero idea of the real agenda being worked out. Satan knows perfectly well that Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore has to put up with what he presumes is just Jesus demonstrating that power. Satan does not understand at all that Jesus is demonstrating what will be normal for all men and woman in the Kingdom, and especially not that he, Satan, will help fulfil this plan by having Jesus crucified. If he suddenly sees 12 ordinary Galilean Jews replicating Son of God type behaviour, he may have an “aha” moment and draw some conclusions.

Therefore, Jesus ensures that he will draw the wrong conclusion. To achieve this, He makes sure that what the disciples model will look like fulfilment of the existing covenant (which of course will be of concern to Satan, but nothing he can’t handle – he thinks). Luke records the very first time Jesus speaks in a synagogue, in Nazareth. He reads the beginning of Isaiah 61. This passage speaks of the servant of the Lord having been anointed, and later in the passage (past the point where Jesus stopped reading) it speaks of a crown of beauty in place of mourning, the oil of joy instead of ashes. As Satan knows perfectly well, the existing covenant includes the promise of deliverance from demonic oppression and from every kind of illness. So Jesus – I am guessing – tells His disciples, “on this occasion I want you to anoint the sick with oil and then heal them; you are reminding them that the oil of joy, as well as healing, is their portion.” In a limited sense it may have been like training wheels on a bicycle for the disciples; Jesus wants them to see that they can heal the sick with the authority He has given them, the oil helps get the sick into agreement with them, by referencing Israel’s covenant (under which oil was used in anointing priests, and later, kings). And Jesus always found a in the sick person a point of agreement with God’s promise before He healed them. (In Nazareth He couldn’t work any miracles except healing a few sick people, because of their unbelief.)

But the oil was never a necessary part of the healing. Is there a problem with using oil in healing? Only if it obscures the real issue, which is that the sick person needs to be in agreement with what Heaven says, i.e. that they are healed.

So what about the James passage? Yes, it speaks about praying for the sick as well; I would simply reiterate that this is not how Jesus healed anyone. But here is the assumption we may be coming to the passage with:

People get sick.

So when people get sick, James tells them to call for the elders who will pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. He goes on to say that if they have sinned their sins will be forgiven.

The assumption of the Kingdom is a little different. In the Kingdom, citizens know their rights, including the right to refuse sickness, and where it turns up, to drive it off. If we read James 5:14 as if it is saying whenever someone gets sick, it’s a job for the elders (and the anointing oil), then we have missed the point: the point is that believers don’t get sick and if they start to get sick, they have the authority to turn that attack back.

But: everyone has moments when they let the enemy in under their guard. You may feel stupid afterwards (don’t waste your energy on that), but once you are on the back foot, or falling down, it can be pretty hard to enforce your rights in the Kingdom. So what James is saying then would be “if you allow yourself to get clobbered, there is no shame in asking for help! The elders will pray for you, and agree with you for healing; and they will anoint you with oil to remind you of your citizenship in the Kingdom and membership of God’s royal household. (Anointing oil being a mark of those destined to be either priests or Kings in the old covenant).

And what about the forgiving of sin? Well actually, your sins are already forgiven, and what the Greek says is “if they have made any faults or mistakes, they will be released.” In other words, the most common reason for getting on the back foot is the sense that we have failed God or committed so sin, and Satan will use that to keep us down. The truth is, you are already forgiven; you need to confess your sin to God at least, but not in order to be forgiven: it is rather in order that you might know that you are released from that sin.

So what James is painting for us is a picture of what to do when illness gets a hold; call in the elders, let them affirm you and stand with you, ensure that you are not being held under by something God already dealt with, and all the lies of the enemy that can tie us up. Anointing with oil is simply a good way to make that affirmation concrete.

And here is the hard truth. The elders can’t do it all for you. What they do is to enable you to stand back on your feet in faith and take responsibility once more for your own health and prosperity. If you insist on being passive and a victim, then no amount of their time, prayer or oil will be of any avail to you. But why would you? We – including you – are more than conquerors! (Romans 8:31-39)

Know that healing is yours and when you need help enforcing that, for whatever reason: ask for help!

Mark 9:30-37

They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.” But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.
They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.
Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.”
He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”

(Mark 9:30-37 NIV)

This is a passage where I think we could be missing the point a little, simply because we tend to deal in caricatures. Or maybe that is just me!

I say that because I have always read this as “disciples don’t understand, so fall to putting themselves forward as the most important and Jesus shames them with a small child.” But there is a little bit more going on here than just that.

Firstly, and whatever it looked like, why were the disciples talking about who was the greatest?

Jesus has – on this occasion – successfully kept the crowds at bay so He can teach His disciples, which He does by telling them that He is going to be handed over to men, and they will kill Him, and having been killed after three days He will arise (ἀναστήσεται is simply the middle future of the verb meaning “make to stand up”, hence I will make myself stand up or “arise”; it does of course cover rising from the dead, but that may not have been clear to the disciples.)

The disciples didn’t understand but were too frightened to ask.

So why were they talking about who was the greatest? If Jesus is saying – is He saying? – that He is going to die, what is going to happen then? That is the problem they are trying to solve: who is going to lead us?

Now of course, we know they are missing the very biggest part of the whole story – i.e. that Jesus really does mean He will rise from the dead – but it explains what is happening. They aren’t all saying “me, me, me, I am better than you” (which, I regret, is how I have tended to hear it); the Greek makes it clear that they are calculating to try to understand who will need to become their next leader. Jesus asks them “what were you trying to work out on the road?”; they were silent because amongst themselves they were trying to calculate who was greatest. διαλογίζομαι is literally to balance accounts, and therefore to calculate and, yes, to argue (for a certain value of argue, namely arguing about relative values).

So I don’t think this is “me, me, me” at all; I read this as a conversation like this: “clearly it is Peter because he walked on water…” and “well, hold on, John did …”; “yes, but …” and so on. Whether or not Peter or John was secretly hoping they would be chosen, or, conversely, wise enough to hope they wouldn’t be, we don’t and can’t know. We know that the mother of James and John was very ambitious for them, but that is a different story,

But when Jesus asks them what they were working out (also διαλογίζομαι) on the road, they are silent because they were embarrassed: it is like the President or PM walking into a room of his colleagues and finding them discussing his successor. Or at least that is how they felt – caught out.

So if it wasn’t “me, me, me”, why does Jesus instruct them on the characteristics of a leader? Simply because their calculations were based on very flawed premises; and that is where this suddenly starts feeling uncomfortably contemporary. They had been discussing who was greatest, on the assumption that “greatest” was the criteria for leadership. Jesus is saying “you want to be first or foremost? Be least, lowest and the one who serves everyone else.”

And why does He take the child in His arms? He is modelling what a leader looks like: they have time for the apparently unimportant. (Only apparently, though; it is actually about sharing God’s priorities, and God puts a lot of store on receiving and protecting those who haven’t yet taken on board the lies of the enemy, as we shall see in the next episode.)

In passing, if you want to understand why it matters so much that we respect and support those who lead us, it is because they won’t be those who claim respect and demand position for themselves. (See 1 Thesslonians 5:12 and especially 1 Timothy 5:17-21; the latter also makes it clear that being a leader isn’t a free pass from being accountable.) When we fail to honour that, we don’t really hurt the leader, we simply disqualify ourselves from being led.

So although the main point here is that the disciples have missed what Jesus was telling them about rising again, He has used the opportunity to teach them the right way to calculate the fitness of a leader. And as I say, that is a very relevant and contemporary thought.