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.

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.