Mark 3:27

“In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house.” (Mark 3:27 NIV)

Jesus has been accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul, the Prince of Demons. Jesus points out to His accusers that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, nor can a house divided against itself; so if Satan is casting out Satan, then he is done and finished.

So this next verse can seem like just more of the same; but in fact it is making a much bigger point, one that we can easily miss.

Firstly, Jesus is pointing out to the Pharisees that since they are clearly not casting out Satan themselves, then they are admitting that the Strong Man, Satan, is currently in full control of his property as far as they are concerned, and that they, the Pharisees, are no threat to him, Satan.

Secondly, this does suggest that they – Pharisees, Israel, mankind generally – are in the unenviable position of having been previously plundered by the Strong Man. How else did he accumulate all that stuff that should have been mankind’s?

And of course, this is the story of Genesis 3. Satan was subject to the then Ruler of this world – Adam, operating under God’s authority – but played him and his wife for fools and traitors, and stripped them of all they had; including their rule. So Jesus is not just referencing what He Himself is doing, but also how it ever came about that Satan got to dwell in safety with a lot of stuff that wasn’t properly his.

He bound Adam and plundered his goods

And just note how it happened: Satan picked up there was some prohibition God had given Adam and Eve about the Garden, and so fed Eve a line – “did God say you weren’t to eat of any of the trees in the Garden?” – that tricked her into divulging the something Satan had no reason or right to hear – “Oh no, it is just this tree we can’t eat of…”. And that gave Satan all the information he needed in order to spring his trap.

So yes, the third and final part is that indeed, Jesus has bound the Strong Man, Satan. Everything that is rattling the Pharisees (e.g. the casting out of every demon) is the result of Jesus plundering Satan’s house.

And as I have observed previously, Jesus was able to say “I have overcome the world”, before He went to the Cross. He went to the Cross to free us and give us a legal share in His victory and His Kingdom; but Jesus had Satan beaten and bound when they faced off in the desert; and – unlike Eve – Jesus wouldn’t give him the time of day, nor any clue as to what He had come to accomplish. Satan never had any legal hold over Jesus, and Jesus never gave him one iota to work with. (Our situation of course was different: our first parents submitted themselves, and us, to his rule, so we all start a long way behind. But blabbing what God tells you, to those who have no need to know, is still a bad idea.)

And if you struggle with the thought that Jesus had already beaten Satan before He went to the Cross, Jesus makes it very clear. He wouldn’t be able to plunder Satan’s house now, if He hadn’t first bound him.

Mark 3:1-6

At the start of Mark 3 we read that Jesus went into a synagogue, and a man with a withered hand was there. Some people wanted grounds for accusing Jesus, so the watched him to see if He would heal on the Sabbath.

So let’s see how good you are at guessing: was the man healed, and who healed him?

You won’t be surprised that your guess of “Yes” for the first question is, in fact, correct. But if you answered “Jesus” to the question, “who healed him?” then you might want to go to the passage and read it carefully.

Jesus gave the man two instructions, both of which he obeyed. The first was “Stand up in front of everyone.”

Knowing perfectly well that some of the assembly were there to trap Him, Jesus used the man as a visual aid to pose a very simple (but deadly, to the religious mindset) question. “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?”

The congregation remained silent.

Jesus looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart. Why?

Not just because of the people in the synagogue and their attitude, I suspect; but because of this demonstration of how the covenant and law which had been given to ensure the safety and blessing of Israel had been weaponised to keep people in their places. The Sabbath was given to Israel as a taste of what was to come, once the curse of the Fall was dealt with; the recovery of all that was lost, including rest, health and provision with no sweat and hard labour. Now Jesus watches as it is used by people acting in bad faith who want to stop anyone from hearing a message that can set them free.

After which He gives the man a second instruction: “Stretch out your hand”. And he did so, and his hand was completely restored.

So who healed the man? The man did. In an incredibly hostile and negatively charged atmosphere, he did the two things Jesus told him to do. As Jesus said to the woman with the issue of blood (Matt 9, Mark 5 and Luke 8), ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε. “Your trust has saved you.”

If you don’t like the distinction I am making, ask instead, how did the man receive his healing? By obeying Jesus. If he hadn’t obeyed, would he have received his healing? Not as far as we are aware. So did Jesus heal him, or did the man himself?

Why do I translate πίστις as trust, rather than faith? Simply because in English, the word “faith” has taken on a life of its own, as something we have that is entirely about us – like having big muscles because we have been exercising (and drinking inadvised quantities of protein shake). “Trust” is however the fundamental meaning of πίστις, and what is more, it applies absolutely to anyone whether they have developed big spiritual muscles or not. Trust is about your relationship to another; I don’t need to know how the answer will come, but my heart is fully persuaded that what Jesus says is true.

From that position of trust, it follows that if He tells me to stand in front of a hostile crowd, I do so; and when He tells me to stretch out the hand I can’t stretch at all, I do so. And that’s how you receive from the Kingdom of God.

Of course the Pharisees and Sadducees went off to plot against Jesus, very angry. No wonder, since they knew He hadn’t broken their “strict” interpretation of the Law. He didn’t touch the man, He didn’t proclaim healing over him, He just told him to do something that was permitted even on the Sabbath – “stretch out your hand”.

And the wretched man did so.

Mark 1:40-42

A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”

Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.

(Mark 1:40-42 NIV)

I have a feeling we may be reading these verses without hearing what is going on, and without seeing ourselves in the picture.

I certainly lost count years ago of the number of times I had heard the phrase: “if it be thy will, please heal so-and-so”.

I will come to the second part of that sentence in a minute, but the first part – “if it be thy will” is precisely what the leper said to Jesus: Ἐὰν θέλῃς, “if you should be willing”.

How does Jesus respond to this approach?

The NIV has “Jesus was indignant”. In fact, it is a little stronger than that: καὶ ὀργισθεὶς is “and having been made angry”. That’s right. Saying “if it be thy will” makes Jesus angry. Why would that be?

In the context, the leper was someone who was already a beneficiary of the Mosaic covenant (as demonstrated by the instruction Jesus gives him in v 44 to go and show himself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for his cleansing). His healing was already a matter of covenant promise on the part of God.

Expressing doubt about whether His Father really meant what He had promised in the Law made Jesus angry. Since we are those who have an even better covenant, with even more clarity about God’s absolute intention to bless, prosper and heal us, I will leave to your imagination how Jesus may respond when we pray “if it be thy will…”

But hold on Jon – the leper was healed! Surely there is no problem if we get our healing anyway?

And there is the difference: the leper was healed because – despite the Ἐὰν θέλῃς – he then made a faith declaration: δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι, “you are able to cleanse me.” (literally “carry away from me”, meaning the leprosy). I still don’t recommend saying “if it be thy will”, but “you are able to cleanse me” is streets ahead of “please heal me (or so-and-so).” There is literally nothing to work with in what that latter formulation. It is begging, rather than faith. As I have noted before, Jesus, in the Gospels, does whatever it takes to find the point of faith, in order to help people receive what is already theirs; but sometimes there is nothing there.

And despite my provocative (or perhaps provoking) heading, I absolutely believe that we can see answer whenever we pray together (since Jesus promised it). But read Matthew 18:18-20 for yourself, and noting every instruction and promise there, structure your prayer meeting like that; and you will receive what you ask.

And please: no more telling God we doubt His goodness and good intentions and ability to keep His promises.

Mark 1:11

‘At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

‘At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.‘

(Mark 1:9-13, NIV, verse 11 highlighted)

This is a pivotal moment in the long haul of salvation history. A plan long laid (since before the foundation of the world) is about to launch; and like any mission, the moment of “Go / No Go” is hugely significant. Do we launch the astronauts atop their high-explosive missile? Do we drop the Marines behind enemy lines? Well, we’d better be sure; lives are at stake, not just the success of the mission.

And do we launch the one and only Son of God into direct contact and confrontation with the Ruler of this World; the same one who so easily stripped Adam of his role and rule? Jesus is about to cross a line; from here on there can be no turning back or change of plan.

As it stands in our English translations, God speaks at this moment to encourage Jesus; and I would be the last person to query the value of that. But there are two problems with the language of Mark 1:11, and I think that if we look carefully, we will see that the Father’s intervention is more significant than just an encouraging word. This is the Commander in Chief stating that His prior authorisation of this mission stands, and that His Son is cleared for this mission.

Let’s break this down. Here is the Greek of verse 11:

καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν· Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.

“And a voice came from the heavens, “You are My Son, ὁ ἀγαπητός, in you εὐδόκησα.

Let’s start with ὁ ἀγαπητός. I have referenced before the problems with Christians assuming that ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη are just as simple as the love of God for us and vice versa. ἀγαπάω does mean greet with affection, or hold the departed in affection, but it also means “to put up with”. And ἀγαπητός is worse: its core meaning is “that which one must put up with” or as Liddell and Scott has it, “that wherewith one must be content”.

Am I suggesting that God is saying, “you are my Son, I guess I will have to be satisfied with that”? No, of course not. This word, because of its core meaning, is used often in reference to an only child – I suspect originally because of the Greek tendency to talk down things they valued (lest the gods become jealous), and to talk kindly of things they feared, like the sky at night, (lest the “kindly stars” work some evil against them).

If you have followed the logic, then you will realise that the earthly father who says “you are my son, I need to be content with that” is actually saying “you are my only son, and yes, I love you.” But the key reference is to being an only son. So I would argue that in this case, the Father is saying ὁ ἀγαπητός, meaning “My only Son”, and that ὁ ἀγαπητός here is more or less equivalent to μονογενής, which is often rendered as only-begotten in John 1:14 but actually means “the only one of a kindred”.

Why does this matter? Jesus had been born as a baby thirty-some years earlier. He has submitted Himself to John’s Baptism, and immediately upon leaving the water sees the heavens torn open and the Spirit of God descend upon Him in the form of a dove. And at this crucial moment, God the Father speaks and confirms “You are My Son, the only one I have.”

In any other father’s mouth, the next words might be “don’t do it, come home son! You are the only one I have…” Here, the Father is confirming to Jesus, as He is reunited with God’s Spirit, “you are my only son: there is no Plan B nor is there any backup for what you are about to embark upon.” So what does He say next?

“In you εὐδόκησα.” And εὐδόκησα is aorist indicative active. It is safe to summarise this tense as “punctiliar past”, meaning it happened at a point in time. (I say safe because I remain entirely unconvinced by arguments – referencing other passages than this one – that the aorist can be rendered with an English present tense). So if we take εὐδόκησα as “to be pleased”, then it would have to mean, “in you I was pleased (at a particular point in time).”

Okay, but what about now? If the Father was saying “In you I am well pleased”, then that would surely use the Present, ἐν σοὶ εὐδοκέω. If He wanted to signify “I have always been pleased with You”, then surely the perfect tense would fit; but the aorist is so specifically about a point in time in the past. (I shot the sheriff, I won the race, I married my wife – those would all call for a Greek aorist). At the very least, “I was pleased with you, back then” is a little odd in the context.

So what point-in-the-past meaning of εὐδόκησα would fit here? As it happens, εὐδοκέω is a legal term in one of its main applications, about the giving of consent before the courts or in other legal contexts. (“I consent to the transfer of such and such a property to my daughter’s husband”). So what about, “in you I gave my consent”?

As an aside, we should probably be using this reading elsewhere. Luke 12:32 reads Μὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον, ὅτι εὐδόκησεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν δοῦναι ὑμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν. Once again, εὐδοκέω appears in the aorist indicative active, so I would render this “Don’t fear, O little flock, because the Father [already] consented to give to you the Kingdom.” It isn’t just that the Father is pleased to let you have it, as most versions have it; it is a done deal, already authorised.

So where does this leave us?

At this juncture in time, when it would be “mission-critical” for Jesus to know that He fully understood all the Father had instructed Him to do, His voice comes from heaven, confirming to Jesus that:

You are my Son, the only one, no backups or Plan Bs available;
and yes, in the act of sending you to become a man,
I already gave my authorisation and consent;

Son, you are cleared for action.

Mark 1:1

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God

(Mark 1:1 NIV)

Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

(Mark 1:1 SBL Greek Testament)

Amazing how many questions a short statement can raise, but on this occasion I am not interested in whether we should accept the readings which add υἱοῦ [τοῦ] θεοῦ (Son of God) to the verse (Jesus clearly is the Son of God, whether this verse says so or not); nor am I so worried about whether we say Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the Christ or even Jesus, anointed. A discussion as to whether Ἀρχὴ means “[a] beginning” or “origin” or even “power” could be useful, but even that is completely dependant upon the word we never seem to question, which is εὐαγγελίου, which is the genitive of εὐαγγέλιον and which does not mean “good news”, “glad tidings”, nor anything else of that sort.

Let me be more precise: Liddell and Scott reference a handful of citations where εὐαγγέλιον in the plural can be read as “good news” of some sort (and in the Gospels it is used in the singular); I haven’t tracked down their extra-biblical citations yet, but the LXX one (2 Kings 4:10, by which they actually mean 2 Samuel 4:10 – the LXX has Samuel and Kings as Kings I – IV) at least references the core meaning of εὐαγγέλιον, which is this:

a reward for the bringing of glad tidings.

Does Greek have a word for Good News, as such? Yes, that would be εὐαγγελία. As far as I can see, both Matthew and Mark use εὐαγγέλιον, and never εὐαγγελία, and εὐαγγέλιον means the reward a messenger receives for bringing good news.

In English we say “don’t shoot the messenger”, and in doing so demonstrate we do not share the mindset of our forebears; in the Graeco-Roman world, and that of its contemporary empires, carrying bad news was inauspicious and might cost you your life; carrying good news would inevitably earn you a reward, commensurate with the value of the news.

So what is going on here? Our religious mindset and its consequent passivity, I suspect.

Let me illustrate.

Here is a poster you find outside your house, with a photo of a cat, entitled “Missing”. What is your response?

You probably do a quick visual sweep of your surroundings just in case the missing cat is pulling faces at you from the nearest shrubbery, but essentially you have received a piece of information, which you store away in case it is ever relevant, and then head back inside to watch Netflix.

Here’s a second poster, bearing exactly the same image of the missing cat, but now with the title, “Missing” and underneath the words “Reward: $10,000”. Now, how do you respond?

Well, $10,000 is a lot of money; you check the owner’s address or location to ensure there is at least some chance you could be the lucky winner, and then you are out scouring the streets for the missing cat.

What is the difference? News demands no real response. A cat is missing? Noted. Finding the missing cat could earn me $10,000? I’m on my way. News is what you wrap fish and chips in; a reward demands engagement and action (assuming you wish to be rewarded).

This gets even more interesting if you look at some of the formulations in which εὐαγγέλιον turns up in Matthew and Mark (and no, Luke doesn’t have this at all; he does use the verb which means to carry good news, which Matthew also has); they are many and all primarily variations on:

“for my sake and for the sake of the εὐαγγέλιον”; and

“proclaiming this εὐαγγέλιον of the Kingdom in all the [inhabited] world”

In both those cases, “the reward for carrying Good News” fits with perfect sense; it just isn’t what we are used to hearing.

Here in Mark 1, we also have (vv 14-15)

Καὶ μετὰ τὸ παραδοθῆναι τὸν Ἰωάννην ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ λέγων ὅτι Πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ· μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.

“After John’s arrest, Jesus went into the Galilee proclaiming the reward for Good News of God, and saying that “the season is completed and the Kingdom of God has drawn near; repent and believe in the reward for Good News“

I would be the first to agree that rendering this in English that both flows and makes sense is challenging; but however you decide to handle this, if you omit the element of reward, you would also need to answer to your own satisfaction why Matthew and Mark consistently used (in your view) the wrong word.

The writer to the Hebrews, summarises the journey of all those who come to God, thus:

“…because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him”

(Heb 11:6b, NIV, my emphasis)

In Genesis 15:1, God tells Abram, that He is his shield and שְׂכָרְךָ֖ הַרְבֵּ֥ה מְאֹֽד׃ – “your abundantly multiplied wages”. Or as most English translations have it, “your exceedingly great reward”.

Something has airbrushed the notion of “reward” from our thinking and even – when possible – from our Bible. I am simply suggesting that what we have inaccurately called “the Good News” is actually “The Reward”, a reward arising from our active engagement with this Good News of Jesus the Anointed.

But don’t take my word for it: re-read the parables across all four Gospels and see how many are about receiving a reward, or failing to receive a reward. Makes you think…

John 21

I have always loved the afterword to John’s Gospel. There is a clear closing paragraph at the end of John 20, in verses 30-31. So why John 21? The last two verses of 21 (24-25) are apparently in another hand – you would have to be a strange person to say of your own words “and we know that his testimony is true”. So why tuck this episode in, after the close?

I can think of a couple of obvious reasons – it could have been triggered by John hearing news of Peter’s death, prompting this reminiscence; and it could have been written down by John but only attached to the Gospel which bears his name after his own death; or it could even have been prompted by his continuing presence with the Church long after the other disciples had died; if the “this disciple will never die” story was doing the rounds again, for example. And of course, it could simply be that friends had said to John, I wish you would write down that story at the lake so we don’t lose it. (“Yes, yes, we know the whole world couldn’t contain the books if you wrote down everything Jesus did, but we really like this one…”)

However it came about, I am grateful. It does get some funny (funny strange, not funny haha) treatment at the hands of both translators and expositors, so here is my rendering, with the occasional note in parentheses.

After these things, Jesus showed Himself once more to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias; He revealed Himself like this…

There were, together in the same place, Simon Peter and Thomas called the Twin, and Nathanael, the one from Cana in Galilee, and the Sons of Zebedee and two others of the disciples. Simon Peter said to them, “I’m going fishing”; they said to him, “We’re also coming with you.” They went out, climbed into the boat and in that night they caught nothing.

It was already early morning when Jesus stood on the shingle bank on the shore; only the disciples did not yet know it was Jesus. Jesus therefore said to them, “Lads, don’t you have any breakfast with you?” They answered Him, “No.”

[This needs unpacking. The King James and New King James get closer than the NIV and others, but it is hard to translate without explanation as well. Jesus definitely isn’t asking if they have failed to catch any fish. μή τι προσφάγιον ἔχετε; means “Don’t you have some cooked food?” – which commonly equated (certainly in Athens, but probably in other fish based cuisines as well) to “cooked fish”. I think we should probably hear this as “did you forget to bring your breakfast, lads?”

Lads is a curious term – literally the word is either very small children (which doesn’t seem appropriate), or slave-lads. Where are the disciples? Back where Jesus certainly first encountered at least Simon Peter and the Zebedee boys – slaving away in a boat all night, catching nothing. So “slave-lads” may be an intentional poke.

As may be the word προσφάγιον. Yes, as I just said, it means cooked food or fish. But προσφάγιον is a homonym; its identically spelt but unrelated twin means “a victim sacrificed beforehand”. Coupled with Παιδία (O slave-lads), μή τι προσφάγιον ἔχετε could mean “do you not have a sacrifice that has already been made”, i.e. to free you from all this?

As I suggested in an earlier post, Jesus had already overcome the world before He went to the cross; the cross was to deal with us and to establish the legal basis for us to receive the Kingdom. So when Jesus finds these disciples back at their old way of existence (or possibly, subsistence) He has a pointed joke with them: “Slave lads, got no food? Not been set free from all this?”

I don’t insist on this. For me, Jesus is forever making pointed observations wrapped in wry humour, and those observations are none the less loving and good-intentioned for all that. Certainly, what happens next will model for them once more the Kingdom truth that a word from God will always tell you where your provision is and how to harvest it.]

He said to them, “Cast the net to the right side of the boat and you will find” They cast therefore and they were no longer strong enough to draw it, from the abundance of fish.

Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!”

[I always imagine Peter saying at this point, in a mock sarcastic tone of voice, “Oh really? You think so? Funnily enough, I was starting to think I had maybe seen this play before…”]

Therefore Simon Peter, hearing it was the Lord, girded round him his robe, for he was stripped, and dived into the sea.

[I am perfectly calm. Nothing to see here. I have just put my clothes on and jumped into the lake.]

The other disciples came in the skiff, for they weren’t far from the land but were about a hundred yards (two hundred forearms, if you prefer the original) off shore, trailing the net of fish. When therefore they reached the land, they saw a charcoal fire laid, with small fish laid upon it, and bread. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the little fish which you have just caught.”

Simon Peter therefore got up and drew the net up onto the land, full of 153 great fish; and despite being so many, they had not ripped the net.

[Again I see humour – and intention – in Jesus’ words “bring some of the little fish you have just caught”, when in fact they are 153 huge fish. For one thing, the fire Jesus has built has little fish upon it; with His – and the Holy Spirit’s – instruction, they will do greater things even than He has.]

Jesus said to them, “Come and breakfast!”

None of the disciples had the effrontery to examine Him saying “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and the fish likewise. This was already the third time Jesus showed Himself to the disciples, having risen from the dead.

When therefore they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord, You know that I love You.”

[Time out: crucially to understanding this passage we have two words for love, and I am sure you have heard that a bazillion times. But the nonsense that is spoken over the verb ἀγαπάω needs some paring back. Yes, it does get adopted by the early Christian community as a key expression of the love between believers and the love of God for us, and of us for God. But it was in common usage long before that, and especially here, we cannot simply pile the whole of Church-age theology onto this verb and hope to understand what Jesus is asking.

One of the earliest usages of ἀγαπάω is in Greek Tragedy, where it is used only of showing affection for the dead. So while there are a range of usages, and it is used at times interchangeably with φιλέω (the other word for love used in our passage), the core of ἀγαπάω is about regard and honour. Both words carry the sense of affection, even deep affection; but only ἀγαπάω has this inner core of regard and honour.

So what did Jesus just ask Peter, and how did he answer?

“Simon, son of John (a very formal address), do you honour me in your love (ἀγαπάω) more than the rest of these men do?”

“Yes Lord, you know that I love you (φιλέω).” (And yes, in terms of relationships, this is how friends love one another; the word is wider than this, but the context probably makes it “I love you as my friend” – a reasonable assumption; as we shall see shortly.)

So what is going on here? The popular view is that Jesus is bringing Peter to a full recognition of just how bad his failure in denying Jesus was, in order that He can forgive and restore him.

And that makes me wonder what is wrong in our heads and hearts. The answer, of course, is that we all think God is mad at us; and so get some satisfaction from thinking that God was even madder at Peter. The truth is that God is not mad at you, and Jesus wasn’t mad (or sad) at Peter. The story we are in is a mighty rescue, in which the rescue is all for you and me, fallen sinful men and women, until now, trapped by our own treason against the one who loves us; and any wrath, and the day of God’s vengeance, is all for Satan and his angels. We really need to get this straight.

Jesus had told Peter everything that was going to happen, including his denials; and also that He was praying for him (Peter) that his trust (not faith) might not fail. The one outcome Jesus was not prepared to entertain was that Peter would stop playing his God-given role and assignment because he might think he had missed the mark so terribly that there was no point trusting and following Jesus any more. But on the contrary, Jesus told him, “and when you have returned, strengthen your brothers.” (see Luke 22:32 – στήρισον is literally ‘make fast’, in the sense of securing a ship, so ‘strengthen’ rather understates the intention here)

When Peter knew it was Jesus on the beach, did he sink down into the skiff and hide for shame? No, he put on all his clothes and jumped in the lake, in his hurry to get to Jesus; for love. Peter is telling the truth when he says φιλῶ σε – I love you.

So what is this passage about. It is not about Jesus trying to make Peter miserable over his sin – although Peter becomes distressed along the way. It is about Jesus moving Peter onto a foundation that is more solid and reliable that the one he was on. Peter’s prior belief was that he loved Jesus the most, that no one would lay down his life more readily for Jesus than he, Peter, would; and so on. This self-perception let Peter down, because it was about comparing himself to others and based on his own strength. The reliable foundation is that Peter really does love Jesus, and Jesus really loves Peter.

With that thought in your head, read on…]

Jesus said to him, “take care of my little lambs.” [Βόσκε is more than just feed, it is feed and tend to]

He said to him a second time, “Simon son of John, do you honour me in love?” (still ἀγαπάω)

He said to Him, “Yes Lord, you know that I love you.” (still φιλέω, love as my friend)

He said to him, “Be shepherd to my sheep.” (Ποίμαινε also has the general sense of tend)

He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, are you my friend?” (and now Jesus has used φιλεῖς με, do you love me as a friend).

Peter was distressed because He said to him the third time, “Are you my friend?” [Even though Jesus was now mirroring what Peter had replied on the previous two occasions.}

He said to Him, “All things, you know: so you know that I love you / am your friend.”

[Two words for “know” here – “All things, you know” is οἶδας, know by reflection; and “so you know I love you” is γινώσκεις, know by observation. But where has this conversation led?

Jesus has brought Peter down (apparently) from “no one loves Jesus as much as I do” to “I am Jesus’ friend.” Wow. What a come down…

Because Peter is now the second person in recorded history (or third if you allow what God says of Moses: “as a man talks with his friend”) to be, on his own admission, the friend of God. First Abraham (Is. 41.8 et al); now Simon, son of John.

That’s not a comedown; and it certainly isn’t a telling off. That’s solid ground. Friends don’t relate by trying to prove they love each other more than any other friend might. (That’s insecurity.) A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity. That’s just what friends are.

And of course, if Peter, then why not you, too?]

Jesus said to him, “Take care of (Βόσκε again) my sheep. Truly I say to you, when you were young, you used to belt yourself up and go where you wished; when you are old, you will stretch out your hands and another will wrap you round the middle and carry you where you do not wish to go.” This He said signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And having said these things, He said to him, “Follow me.”

[Follow me – Ἀκολούθει μοι – as I have said elsewhere, this is an order to be obeyed, not an invitation to wander off together. A war leader says this to a subordinate, a master to a slave. Being Jesus’ friends doesn’t mean He is any less our Lord and Master. But please also note, that once again, Jesus has told Peter beforehand what will happen to him; this time it is not any failing on Peter’s part; Jesus is simply preparing him so he won’t start thinking that he has missed the way when that day arrives.]

Turning, Peter saw the disciple whose Jesus loved following them – him who had lain at dinner against His breast and said, “Lord, he who betrays you – who is it?” Therefore, seeing this one, Peter said to Jesus, “What about him?”

Jesus said to him, “If I should wish him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” Therefore the word went out amongst the brothers that this disciple would never die. Jesus didn’t say that he wouldn’t die, but rather, “If I should wish him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

[Or in other words, “Peter, you have got enough on your own plate in walking out what I have set before you; so mind your own business!”]

This is the disciple who bears testimony concerning these things and the one who wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. There are many other things which Jesus did, which, if every one of them were to be written down, I fear the world wouldn’t be able to make room for all the books being written.

John 20:21-23

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

John 20;21-23 NIV

εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν· Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν· καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς. καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐνεφύσησεν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον· ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς· ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται. (John 20:21-23 SBL Greek Testament)

Therefore Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you. Just as the Father sent me off, so also I am despatching you.” Having said this, He breathed into them and said, “Receive Holy Spirit. Whoever’s sins you should loose, they (the sins) have been loosed for them; whoever you should master, they have been mastered.”

(John 20:21-23 in a more plausible rendering)

A couple of introductory comments, and then the main point.

Why does Jesus speak peace to them “again”? He has just shown them His hands and His (pierced) ribs; the disciples are filled with joy to see Him, but Jesus clearly sees the need to calm them before imparting what He has for them. I have been asking myself why, earlier in the chapter, Peter and John saw an empty tomb, but Mary sees and hears angels – and Jesus Himself. I suspect the answer is this – Peter and John (we assume it is John) are trying to work out what had happened, and the writer says “for until then they had not understood (known) the scripture that it was necessary for Him to rise from the dead.” In other words, they are grappling with a huge tectonic shift in their thinking, which may be why they didn’t see anyone. Mary on the other hand is just weeping (and try seeing straight when your eyes are swollen with tears); she just wants to know where the body is and no big thoughts blind her to what is actually there – two figures in white in the tomb who ask her why she is crying; and another behind her who asks the same question. And all it takes for her to see clearly is Jesus speaking her name. Likewise the disciples now, shut away in their room: they are understandably excited to see Him, but Jesus needs them focussed in order to receive what He gives and what He tells.

Which suggests that what follows might be important. (As an aside, it also suggests to me that hearing and fully receiving what Jesus has to say to me is always going to be way more important than me working it all out.)

Secondly, a question. Jesus uses two different verbs for sending – ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω; is this significant? As the Father ἀποστέλλωed me, so I πέμπω you (as it were). We would be more comfortable if Jesus had used ἀποστέλλω for both, not only because of the symmetry but because of the obvious connection with their being apostles (someone who has been ἀποστέλλωed). Which of course might let us ordinary, non-apostlic, folks off the hook (which I don’t believe for a moment, of course: what Jesus says is for all those who follow Him and receive His Spirit). Maybe there is no significance in the choice of words – they do overlap significantly in their usage. The nearest might be that ἀποστέλλω is more like “sent off” or “sent away”, whereas πέμπω is just sent; Jesus was sent away from Heaven to earth, we are sent out into what is already our world.

Thirdly, that wonderful word ἐνεφύσησεν. “Breathed upon” seems fairly unlikely; this is a word for blowing into a flute or blowing in to inflate a bladder or other skin bag. If so it would appear that Jesus didn’t just stand in the middle of the room and go “whoooofff” (try it; it is hard to do without seeming rather odd). Rather He must have done something like the Maori hongi – come close to each one and shared His breath with them. And of course Λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον is untranslatable in English – it is at both and the same time, all permutations of “receive Holy Spirit” and “lay hold of sacred breath”.

So then what? The loosing and retaining of sins? That is how everyone from Jerome onwards seems to have read verse 23, in particular the last phrase: “if you retain the sins of any they are retained.” One of the reasons – the other reasons constitute so many cans of worms we would bring the internet to its knees trying to mention them all – one of the reasons everyone has translated it this way is that they have taken the last two phrases as a balanced pair. The last phrase lacks most of the features of the previous phrase, but they supply those missing parts to make it “if you loose the sins of anyone…/if you retain the sins of anyone”. The first problem with this is that in the Greek text, there are three phrases, separated by the Greek equivalent of a semi-colon (a period above the line, so: “·”). The first is “receive Holy Spirit”. The second is “should you of anyone their sins loose or remove, they are removed from them.” The third phrase is admittedly a puzzler, but the commonly accepted reading seems to me the most vanishingly implausible option, for many reasons, including everything else Jesus ever said; but the obvious one would be that Jesus had at His disposal other words which would have made His meaning plain if this was actually His intention – for example δέω, I bind.

Let’s look at those last two phrases in parallel:

ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς·

ἄν τινων κρατῆτε κεκράτηνται.

If we decide that the last phrase should be read as including the missing parts from the former phrase, it would then read

ἄν τινων κρατῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας κεκράτηνται αὐτοῖς.

That still wouldn’t be “whosoever’s sins you retain, they are retained.” It would be one of the following:

Whomsoever’s sins you conquer, they are conquered by, for or to them.

Whomsoever’s sins you repair, they are repaired by, for or to them.

Whomsoever’s sins you prevail over, they are prevailed over by, for or to them.

I hope you see my point.

And in fact, “the sins” and “by, for or to them” are omitted from the Greek, so I am not sure we should be reading them at all.

What does that leave us with? κρατέω is the verb “I am strong or powerful” – hence conquer, master, prevail over, and so on. We are looking for a meaning which allows us to use it with the genitive, τινων, and a number of such meanings exist. That is why I used “whoever you should master, they have been mastered” in the opening translation of the passage above. Achieving mastery over others doesn’t fit very comfortably over other things Jesus said about lording it over one another; but of course, while forgiveness in the previous phrase refers to people, this last phrase may reference powers and principalities – in which case conquer / have been conquered would fit very well.

My personal favourite (and it is no more than that, but to me it does fit with the words of Jesus elsewhere, and the notion that we are sent just as He was) is this:

“And of whomsoever you lay hold, they have been firmly grasped.”

Which sounds a lot like John 10:28-29 – “all whom the Father has given me… no one can snatch them out of my hand…(because) no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.”

So to summarise, somewhat freely but for sense:

Therefore Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you. Just as the Father sent me off, so also I am despatching you in My service.” Having said this, Jesus breathed into each of the disciples and said to them, “receive Holy Spirit; whoever’s sins you release, they have been set free; whoever you lay hold of, We’ve got them.”

John 16:33 and John 19:30

Last few weeks I have had several passages I wanted to write on, but haven’t managed to get a space in which to write. In the meantime I have been reading on and have nearly reached the end of John 19. But here is an interesting question which ties some threads from John 16-19 together: at what point did Jesus have victory over the world and its ruler?

I suspect most of us would say (and I would have said), “on the Cross”; or possibly “when He rose again.” But that doesn’t seem to be His own view. Look at John 16:33 first:

ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ εἰρήνην ἔχητε· ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ θλῖψιν ἔχετε, ἀλλὰ θαρσεῖτε, ἐγὼ νενίκηκα τὸν κόσμον.

These things I have spoken to you in order that in me you may have peace; in this world you have pressure, but take heart: I have conquered (or vanquished, or routed) the world. (John 19:33, my rendering)

A couple of notes: θλῖψιν is a specific word meaning pressure, not trouble. Pressure only becomes trouble when you don’t know how to handle it; and I do mean that in all seriousness (that is why we don’t just need to know stuff, but rather how to walk it out). And νενίκηκα is the perfect of the verb meaning I conquer/ vanquish / prevail / win, so it really does mean I have already conquered. And the point is, this is before Jesus is arrested, tried and crucified.

Of course, if you don’t believe Jesus means what He says, that is a different problem; but as far as I can see, Jesus was saying He had already won and had already conquered the world and, therefore, its ruler. I see no way you can turn this into a future projection, ie “take heart because after I have died on the cross, I will have conquered the world.”

So Jesus went to the cross, knowing He had already won. And as it happens, that is how we are meant to face challenges and pressure: knowing that we too have already won.

But what is the cross for, then?

Well the answer is exactly what He tells us. The last word Jesus spoke before He died, according to John 19:30, is Τετέλεσται. And with apologies to the NIV, about the one thing it doesn’t mean is “it is finished”. Likewise τέλος is not “the end” in the sense that we mean a movie or a play is finished; but rather that an intended goal is consummated or accomplished. Hence teleological, which references the belief that events are guided towards an intended end.

So for Τετέλεσται “It is accomplished” is possible, and some other translations favour this; but I think it is even more specific than that. Τετέλεσται means “It is legally executed“; or if you prefer, “it is done”, in the sense that the legal agreement, or piece of legislation, or will or covenant or whatever, is fully enacted and is now and henceforth the legal basis upon which those within its scope are to operate.

So, based on His own testimony, Jesus faced the cross knowing He had already won; but His death was necessary in order to give legality on earth to His Father’s plan and intention. And if we have paid attention to anything we read in the Gospels, we should know what that is: “it is the Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom“.

And that is why Paul is able to say that “if the rulers of this age had understand the plan of God, they never would have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8). They were already beaten, but now they allowed – insisted upon – an action which meant God’s plan for men and women to inherit, enter into, and enjoy the Kingdom, would be given full legal effect in the earth realm.

Whoops.

John 15:1-7

John 15 has always been a favourite chapter for me; apart from anything else, I memorised most of it in French while staying in Provence, among the vineyards of the Vaucluse – a long, long time ago. But there are some things worth noting…

Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή, καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ γεωργός ἐστιν· πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτὸ ἵνα καρπὸν πλείονα φέρῃ. ἤδη ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε διὰ τὸν λόγον ὃν λελάληκα ὑμῖν· μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν. καθὼς τὸ κλῆμα οὐ δύναται καρπὸν φέρειν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἐὰν μὴ μένῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὑμεῖς ἐὰν μὴ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε. ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος, ὑμεῖς τὰ κλήματα. ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν, ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν. ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα καὶ ἐξηράνθη, καὶ συνάγουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ πῦρ βάλλουσιν καὶ καίεται. ἐὰν μείνητε ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ τὰ ῥήματά μου ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ, ὃ ἐὰν θέλητε αἰτήσασθε καὶ γενήσεται ὑμῖν· (John 15:1-7, SBL Greek NT)

At the risk of being pedantic, the world is full of vines, so Jesus does definitely say “I am the true grapevine”, and not any other kind of vine. Secondly, He says His Father is the man who works the soil (ὁ γεωργός, which is often taken as ploughman, but not in the context of a vineyard). Gardener is a bit inexact.

It gets better; τὰ κλήματα are the twigs, not the branches (which would be κλάδοι). Every κλῆμα (twig) in me which doesn’t bear fruit, He (the γεωργός) takes, and every one that does bear fruit, He tidies up, so it will bear more fruit. Yes, you can say καθαίρει is “prunes”, but then you won’t get the sense of the little joke in v.3. Literally καθαίρει is cleanse or clear, with the focus more on “what is taken away” than on “how clean you are”. You can καθαίρει a space or a room. So pruning is clearing away the bits you don’t want to leave. When, in verse 3, we meet the cognate word καθαροί, we shouldn’t be reading “cleansed”, at least in its theological sense. (Really? The disciples are cleansed by His word, while the rest of us require His shed blood on the cross?) Nor is “pruned” really either appropriate of people, nor is it a meaning specifically associated with the adjective καθαροί, although “free of weeds” is! It is more like “you have already been tidied up (or sorted out) by the word I have spoken to you” – with the, as yet unspoken, implication, “so you are good to go, ready to bear fruit”.

Here are a couple of more “weighty” issues, both of which should be blindingly obvious, but which somehow, don’t seem to be.

First off, in the second part of v.4 we find: “Just as the twig is not able to bear fruit from itself unless it remains in the grapevine, likewise neither can you unless you remain in me.”

I fear many of us would totally agree with the words I have in bold there – “we can bear no fruit of ourselves” – and yet completely miss the whole point, which is “unless you remain in me”. In other words, we should not be saying, “we can’t do anything of value, which is why we are waiting for God to do something;” on the contrary, we should be saying “because we remain in Jesus, we absolutely can bear fruit from ourselves”, which is what Jesus says here.

He then repeats Himself, in case we missed the point.

ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ οὗτος φέρει καρπὸν πολύν, ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν.

“The one remaining in me, and I in him, this one bears much fruit, because without me, you are not able to do anything.”

The converse of His statement is “with me, you can do anything.” Which should be obvious, but it is not what I hear believers saying.

The second matter is related, but goes a step further.

ἐὰν μείνητε ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ τὰ ῥήματά μου ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ, ὃ ἐὰν θέλητε αἰτήσασθε καὶ γενήσεται ὑμῖν·

“If you should remain in me, and my words (the things I have spoken) should remain in you, ask (and “ask” is a command!) whatever you are willing (to ask), and by you, it shall be done.”

That verse is huge however you look at it. And please note, γενήσεται is middle voice, not passive, hence my rendering above; it isn’t just “it will be done for you, so watch your mailbox and it will turn up”.

But my big question is actually this:

“Whose words?”

Yes, yes, the whole of scripture is God’s word. But Jesus says here “the things I have spoken”. Worth asking yourself if the words of Jesus are your constant study and meditation; He implies they might be quite important.

Especially if you want to move past simply “waiting for Godot…” and instead, lay hold of that Kingdom which it is “the Father’s good pleasure to give you…”

John 14:29-31

This short passage highlights a principle that Jesus observed all of the time and which we would do well to imitate; namely, that you share information on a need-to-know basis, and that your enemy needs to know nothing.

I will confess that when I first heard this principle taught, I thought it was well “over the top” and completely ridiculous – until I started to observe how many deals (for example) that I told others were happening, then proceeded to fall through; the ones I kept to myself, actually happened. And once you see it, you recognise that it was the constant practice of Jesus.. Paul refers to it when he says “None of the rulers of this age understood it [i.e. God’s plan], for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Exactly; because then, where would we have been?

Let’s look at this short passage in John:

καὶ νῦν εἴρηκα ὑμῖν πρὶν γενέσθαι, ἵνα ὅταν γένηται πιστεύσητε. οὐκέτι πολλὰ λαλήσω μεθ’ ὑμῶν, ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων· καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν, ἀλλ’ ἵνα γνῷ ὁ κόσμος ὅτι ἀγαπῶ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ καθὼς ἐνετείλατο μοι ὁ πατὴρ οὕτως ποιῶ. Ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν ἐντεῦθεν. (John 14:29-31, SBL Greek Testament)

Literal-as-comfortable rendering goes like this:

“And now I have said [this] to you before it happens, in order that when it happens you will trust. I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world comes; and he understands nothing in me, but [this is happening] in order that the world may know that I love the Father and just as the Father has authorised me to act, that’s what I do. Get up, let’s go from here.” (John 14:29-31, my rendering)

So a few notes: first, most translations have something like “so when it happens you may believe.” This comes back to two points, one about translation, the other about context. πιστεύω (as in πιστεύσητε) is fundamentally “I trust, put my faith in, or rely upon a person, thing or statement”. When we render this as “believe”, we are in danger of jumping over a whole process and simply portraying “the Christian believer”, filled with faith and the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think Jesus can be saying this; and if He was, then He must have been disappointed. Not one of the disciples saw Him die on the cross and then leapt up and down saying, “Yes, now I believe! Hallelujah!” (This is the contextual part). Surely He was saying, “there is some unimaginable stuff coming down the line towards us, but I am telling you as much as I can now, so that – since I told you it was coming – you will keep trusting me, even though every logical faculty will be telling you it is all over.” And that happened; I see no evidence that any of the disciples got angry because they felt Jesus had been lying to them and had betrayed them – which would have been a perfectly reasonable response to what happened, otherwise. They still trusted Him, even when they thought He was gone for good.

Second, Jesus has explained as much as He can, but now He will say little more to them. Why? Because the ruler of the world is coming, who understands nothing in Jesus, and Jesus intends to keep it that way. So He won’t be talking in any more detail about what is going to happen.

Most translations have something like the NIV’s “he has no hold over me”, and it could be that (more properly “he has nothing in Me”). But the use of the verb ἔχω in its sense of “understand” is much overlooked in our NT translations (in my opinion). The original meaning of ἔχω is “check”, as in stop something in its tracks by grabbing it, from which “have”, “hold” and “understand” all derive. We have a couple of similar idioms in modern English – grasp (with the hand or with the mind); and get (get the cup, do you get it?). And as I suggested above, this then makes sense of why Jesus will no longer speak much with the disciples; Satan is coming and Jesus wishes to maintain his ongoing lack of comprehension about what is going on.

So let me ask you, as I have had to ask myself too often in the process of learning not to be a blabber mouth: why do we feel we need to tell everyone we meet what we are planning to do?

Insecurity. We don’t really know if we have got it right, but we are hoping someone (everyone) is going to say, “wow! that’s really amazing”. We will then feel better (momentarily); until the next person comes past and we try again to bolster our self-confidence.

Would you be surprised if I said this was not an issue for Jesus, and in the Kingdom, it shouldn’t be for us either. Jesus, having referenced the ruler of the world, says this is happening so that the world (currently ruled by Satan) will know a) that He loves the Father; and b) that exactly as the Father has authorised Him to act, just exactly that is what He does.

Assuming you are married, hear what God is saying by His Spirit, be in full agreement with your spouse, and that is as far as it needs to go, until God tells you otherwise (and even then, pay close attention to what He says: “tell Fred and Mary” means just that – not your or their ten best friends as well). Keep your powder dry, and your enemy ignorant. If you are single, ask God to show you who you have in your life, who should know and be in agreement with you – your parents, a couple who mentor you, or someone else. Love the Father, and whatever He has authorised you to enact, you do it. Just like He said.

And stop worrying about whether everyone else you meet will approve your plans: if Jesus had done that, none of us would be here.