BLOG
EXEGETICAL PREACHING BLOG
STAY ENGAGED WITH NEW POSTS
ALL POSTS FROM 2021
click here to view posts from:
12/22/21
THE "PERFECT" LAW
“But one who has looked intently at the perfect law, the continued in it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an active doer, this person will law of freedom, and has be blessed in what he does.”
All humans, including Christians, desire freedom, happiness, and a better future. However, we often assume these good things are obtained by fulfilling our own unfettered desires. James instructs otherwise. In 1:25, James contrasts the mere hearer of the word (1:23–24) with the doer. The word that is heard (and done or not) is described as looking into the “perfect” law, also known as “the law of freedom.” James replaces logos (“word”) (1:18, 21, 22, 23) with nomos (“law”) (1:25; 2:8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 4:11) here and throughout his letter.
Concerning “the perfect law (nomon teleion),” James has used the adjective teleios three times in the first chapter (1:4 twice, 17). In 1:4, James commands “let endurance have its perfect (teleion) result, so that you may be perfect (teleioi) and complete.” In 1:17, he assures his readers that “every perfect (teleion) gift is from above.” In this wider context, the law in 1:25 is a kind of perfect gift from the Father that He will use to make His people perfect and complete. It also relates to the “royal law” of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 2:1, 8).
Next, James describes the perfect law as “the law of freedom (ton tēs eleutherias).” Later, using the same phrase, James warns his readers to speak and act as those to be judged by “the law of freedom” (2:12). Those who have been saved by the word of truth must also live in accordance with the law of freedom as they will be judged by it. God’s law in Christ is one of freedom, both freedom from sin and freedom to righteousness. So, “the law of freedom” likely relates to “the word of truth” (1:18) as well as “the word implanted” that has the ability “to save your souls” (1:21). James might also allude to Jeremiah, in which God promises to write the law on his people’s hearts, enabling them to obey His law (Jer. 31:31–34).
The point of all this for James is to direct his audience to be hearers and doers. The one who has looked and “has continued (parameinas)” will be blessed, making constancy the primary difference between the “forgetful hearer” and the “active doer.” It is specifically the one who has looked and continued in the law who “will be blessed in what he does.” The term “blessed” (makarios) could denote future favor from God, a present state of happiness, or a combination of these two. In 1:12, “man who perseveres under trial” is presently happy (makarios) precisely because “he will receive the crown of life” from the Lord in the future. Moreover, the Septuagint uses makarios only for ’šr, never for brk. Both 1:12 and 1:25 include future-oriented blessings but not to the exclusion of the present. The doer in 1:25 “will be blessed in what he does,” implying both future and present blessing. Thus, as a sapiential saying, 1:25 promises both eschatological favor and a current state of happiness to the one who remains in God’s word. Accordingly, the Venerable Bede commented on this verse, “Spiritual happiness is not gained by empty words but by putting our good intentions into practice.”
Morgan Johnson
12/8/21
NONE HOLY LIKE YAHWEH
1 Samuel 2:2
The book of Samuel in the Hebrew Bible (spanning 1 and 2 Samuel in our Bibles) displays exquisite literary crafting. It is framed by two prayers: Hannah’s prayer of thanksgiving in 1 Samuel 2 and David’s song of deliverance in 2 Samuel 22. Hannah’s prayer echoes the Song of the Rock (Deut 32) and sees in her own experience a picture of Yahweh’s continuing faithfulness to Israel, which will result in a king. The book of Samuel tells the story of how God cast down the houses of Eli and Saul and raised up his humble king, David.
First Samuel 2:2 is a crucial verse: “There is no one holy like the LORD, / Indeed, there is no one besides You / Nor is there any rock like our God.” Yahweh as holy and as rock encapsulates the entirety of the book of Samuel.
The verse begins with the phrase, “There is no one holy like the LORD” (’en qadosh kadonai). The word qadosh (“holy”) is often understood to mean “set apart” or “separated.” But important research by French biblical scholar Claude-Bernard Costecalde and subsequently Peter Gentry have shown that qadosh in biblical Hebrew generally refers to being “devoted.” This understanding illuminates Hannah’s usage in this verse. She has just praised Yahweh for siding with her against her enemies, for delivering a lowly, distraught woman from the arrogant and powerful. Yahweh demonstrated his holiness to Hannah by delivering her—by drawing near to her, hearing her prayer, and being faithful to her. But this was a picture of his relationship to Israel as a whole. He was their devoted God, the one who delivered them from Egypt and all their enemies, their husband, their rock.
The third line in this verse (1 Sam 2:2) declares, “Nor is there any rock like our God” (v’en tsur kelohenu). Hannah begins here (see also 2:6, paralleling Deut 32:9) to echo Moses’ Song of the Rock (Deut 32). This song was meant to stand as a witness against the Israel when they left him for other gods. The song reminds the singers that Yahweh has been Israel’s rock who saved them (Deut 32:15) and bore them (32:18), who was like a jealously devoted husband to them (32:21). This background of Yahweh as “rock” points out that his holiness is a double-edged sword. He is devoted to his people like a jealous husband: Those who reject him or claim independence from him will be thrown down, but those who humbly look to him will experience his full devotion.
It is because of Yahweh’s holiness and his character as “rock” (tsur) that at the end of Samuel, David can echo Hannah’s prayer in his own song of deliverance. God had brought down David’s enemies and raised him up to a place of honor. Hannah had prayed, “And He will give strength to His king, / And will exalt the horn of His anointed” (1 Sam 2:10). David, speaking of the same devoted rock (2 Sam 22:3, 32, 47), echoes her words (22:51): “He is a tower of salvation to his king, / And shows favor to His anointed.” But then he adds the name: “To David and his descendants forever.”
Several centuries later, Hannah’s song would be echoed yet again, as the holy Rock revealed his ultimate faithfulness in raising up David’s son, Jesus (Luke 1).
Paul Lamicela
11/24/21
BROKEN TABLE-FELLOWSHIP
Galatians 2:11-14
The act of eating together or sharing a table of food with others does not merely function as consuming vital nutrients for physical strength and growth. More importantly, it plays a central role in human life to serve as an expression of individual and communal bonding and identity. Furthermore, the willingness or refusal to share a table with others serves to mark a distinctive communal boundary (Mark 2:13–17; Acts 10:9–48).
In Galatians 2:11–14, Paul recounts a narrative that highlights the conflict over the table-fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers at Antioch. The narrative speaks of Peter’s willingness, at first, to socially interact with the Gentiles at the meal-table. However, with the arrival of “certain people from James,” he withdraws and separates himself from the Gentile believers, leading his fellow Jews to do the same.
Paul states that he opposed (antestēn) Peter “to his face” (kata prosōpon) because “he stood condemned” (kategnōsmenos). The idiom anthistēmi kata prosōpon highlights a direct manner of confrontation. In shame and honor cultures, confronting someone who is elderly and holds a respectable position in the community is avoided in general. Public confrontation of an elderly and reputable figure can easily jeopardize the person’s and family’s honor in the community. Nevertheless, in the Antioch incident, although being aware of Peter’s seniority and prestige in the Christian community, Paul still decides to confront him to his face by going against the cultural norm, indicating the gravity of the issue at stake at Antioch’s mixed table-fellowship.
Knowing the repercussions of his actions and words, why does Paul still feel compelled to confront one of the church pillars (2:9)? The explanatory Greek gar in verse 12 provides the reason for both why Paul confronted Peter and why Peter stood condemned. According to the text, Paul confronted Peter due to his “hypocrisy” (hypokrisei) (2:13) and “not walking straightforwardly with respect to the truth of the gospel” (ouk orthopodousin pros tēn alētheian tou euangeliou) (2:14a).
The Greek term hypokrisei means “putting on a show” or “charade.” Paul’s use of this word for Peter and other Jewish Christians indicates that their change of behavior did not reflect their true convictions about their Gentile brothers and sisters. Rather it showed capitulation to a competing desire to be on the side of the circumcision party from James. Furthermore, the Greek phrase ouk orthopodousin pros tēn alētheian tou euangeliou) (“not to be straightforward about the truth of the gospel”) (2:14a) refers to someone who does not walk or conduct himself rightly in the manner worthy of the truth of the gospel.
Whether Peter realized or not because of his fear (phoboumenos) (2:12b), his deliberate refusal to eat with the Gentile believers at the table-fellowship at Antioch had severe implications for both Jewish and Gentile believers. From Paul’s perspective, Peter and other Jewish believers who refused to dine with the Gentile believers at Antioch acted opposite to “the truth of the gospel.” In this brief story, Peter’s act of separation from the mixed table-fellowship suggests an ethnic and religious boundary between Us and Them (namely Jews and Gentiles). However, Paul reminds us that God has torn down these ethnic, social, and religious boundaries by redefining the believers’ identity through Jesus’ death, resurrection, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (2:16, 20; 3:1–9, 28–29).
Keneth Pervaiz
11/10/21
MOCKING JESUS—OR DAVID? NARRATIVE SUBTEXT AT THE CROSS
Matthew 27:43
Matthew narrates Jesus's road to the cross with heart-breaking detail: his head is beaten, his dignity is assaulted, and his reputation is maligned. Jesus dies with a cry of forsakenness (Matt 27:46). While Christians are familiar with Jesus's crucifixion, Matthew's careful narration makes the tension that the early church felt palpable. How could "the King of the Jews" (Matt 27:37), the son of David (Matt 1:1), face such rejection and die in ignominy? Careful attention to how Matthew narrates Jesus's suffering, however, exposes a subtext that affirms Jesus's royal identity, not in spite of, but because of the resistance he faced. How does he do this?
In Matt 27:43, the chief priests, scribes, and elders express their disdain for Jesus on the cross: "HE TRUSTS IN GOD; LET GOD RESCUE Him now, IF HE DELIGHTS IN HIM; for He said, 'I am the Son of God'" (NASB). These words are strikingly similar to the Greek version of Psalm 22:8 (LXX 21:9): "He hoped in God, let him deliver him, let him save him because he delights in him" (author's translation). While Matthew supplies a couple of synonyms (pepoithen for ēlpisen, ton theon for kyrion) and slightly abbreviates the verse, his careful replication of other aspects (epi for the prepositional phrase, rhusasthō, thelei auton) suggests an allusion. In fact, in this pericope, Matthew seems to use the language of Psalm 22 at least four times (Ps 22:1 in Matt 27:46, Ps 22:18 in Matt 27:35; Ps 22:7 in Matt 27:39). What is Matthew doing here?
Psalm 22 begins with David expressing his trouble and calling out to YHWH (vv. 1-2, 6-8, 12-18). He recounts the taunts of his enemies: jeering, encircling, and eager for his downfall. All four of Matthew's references to Psalm 22 come from these sections. However, in his anguish, David remembers that YHWH delivered his faithful forebears (vv. 3-5). He too trusts in YHWH (vv. 9-10), and the second half recounts his deliverance with vivid praise (vv. 22-31). In light of Jesus's deliverance from death (Matt 28:1f.), this context seems to be the key to Matthew's use of this psalm.
The use of Psalm 22 in Matthew's cross narrative casts Jesus's suffering as in line with righteous sufferers of the past. However, given Matthew's focus on the kingly aspect of Jesus (e.g. the climactic confession of 26:64), it is likely that he saw Jesus's suffering in a distinctly Davidic (i.e. royal) light. Therefore, in Matthew's view, while to some it seems unthinkable that the Messiah would face such opposition and rejection from his own people, these events instead reflect his royal qualities after the pattern of David. As onlookers "wag their heads" (Ps 22:7 in Matt 27:39) and mock "Let God deliver him!", they do what David's enemies did to him. And, like David, Jesus too would rise in triumph to reign (Matt 28:18-20).
Matthew wants his readers to understand that the mockery and rejection of Jesus did not disqualify him as Messiah. Rather, it confirmed his royal identity, showing that Jesus suffered just like David in his road to glory. The mockery of Jesus creates in Christians not embarrassment but confidence.
Jim Dernell
10/27/21
JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS
Isaiah 56 does not exist in a vacuum but follows the wonderful invitation from God to come and freely eat and drink at his table (Isa 55:1-3). YHWH promises that his word will go before Israel and lead them in cosmic, earth-shaking joy. The blight of the Fall, represented by the thorn bush (55:13), is starting to be pulled back. YHWH’s salvation is coming upon the earth and all that is within it.
It is in this immediate context that we hear from Isaiah, “Thus says the Lord (kō ʾāmar yĕhwâ)” (Isa 56:1). This ever-significant phrase is repeated 30 times throughout the book, though its precise function is variegated and not always neatly delineated. Sometimes, it is used to introduce speech directed to Isaiah or other explicitly identified characters (Isa 8:11; 18:4; 37:6), other times it is used to introduce direct speech from YHWH to remember Israel’s past (Isa 29:22). It can also be used as an introduction of God’s character and actions (Isa 43:1; 49:8, 25; 66:1, 12).
In the case of Isaiah 56:1, this phrase introduces a singular command containing two imperatives. It is especially notable that this command comes withoutan explicit addressee (cf. Isa 37:6, 21; 38:1, 5 where such commands have explicit addressees). The only other occurrence of such a construction is found in Isa 43:16-18 and is addressed to Israel as a nation. With Isaiah 55 in mind, it should be understood that the implied audience of this command are those who have sought the Lord and returned to him (Isa 55:6-7). In other words, this command is addressed to all who would be considered as the people of God.
What is it that the people of God are commanded to do? Preserve justice and do righteousness (šimrû mišpāṭ waʿăśû ṣĕḏāqâ). These verbs are second-person plural—this universalizes the command and calls individuals at every level of society, regardless of their occupation, position, or stratum, to preserve justice and do righteousness.
Justice and righteousness form a hendiadys—a pair of words that commonly go together and express a broader, significant concept. The very first occurrence of this pairing is found in Genesis 18:19 as YHWH considers whether or not to tell Abraham about his plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. It is important to note that the concept of doing justice-righteousness (1) is a critical component of what it means to “keep the way of the Lord,” (2) characterizes the children of Abraham, and (3) is the means by which YHWH will bless Abraham and, by extension, the rest of the world.
Returning to Isaiah, this word pair occurs approximately eighteen times and, significantly, Isaiah opens with God indicting Israel for behaving like Sodom and Gomorrah (Isa 1:10-23)! They have oppressed the vulnerable widows and orphans (1:10) and taken bribes (1:23). She who once was full of justice has now become full of greed and oppression (1:21-23). And what is the remedy for Israel? She will be redeemed with justice and righteousness (1:27). After seeing the new world order of YHWH in Isaiah 55, justice-righteousness appears in Isaiah 56:1 as a reminder that the new covenant community is one that is defined, among other things, by their pursuit of justice and righteousness.
Stephen Xia
10/13/21
THE PURE MILK OF THE WORD
The older I get, the more I realize the many ways in which I am, for better or for worse, like my father and mother. I take on their little mannerisms and quirks, their peculiar ways of thinking and preferences, and I’m blissfully unaware of these things until someone else points them out. This kind of family resemblance is the same sort of thing Peter desires for his audience.
In 1 Peter 2:2-3, the Petrine audience is exhorted, even commanded, to “long (epipothēsate) for the pure milk of the word (to logikon adolon gala), so that by it they may grow in respect to salvation.” As 21st century readers, we might read this and be tempted to glance over this phrase because we take for granted the necessity of milk for a newborn’s health and sustenance. Within the context of the first-century Greco-Roman world, however, this figure of speech would likely have connoted more than mere nutrition.
Greco-Roman sources in antiquity provide significant insight into the thinking and practice of the time concerning moral and ethical growth and childrearing. The quality of the mother’s (or wetnurse’s) milk has a direct bearing on the one being nursed—in addition to physical sustenance, the breastmilk has the potential to transfer temperament, character, and virtue. For the Petrine audience, their ingestion of the milk of the word, whose source is God himself and thus is of the highest quality, will inevitably shape their moral and ethical growth. They will take on the temperament, character, and virtues of their Father and God as they are nourished by drinking in and obeying (1 Peter 2:1) the word.
It is important to recognize that Peter’s command to desire the milk of the word is not based on a sense of duty or obligation. Rather, it is based on the prior, authentic experience of the Petrine audience—they have already tasted that the Lord is kind and would gladly affirm his kindness. This is the rhetorical weight of verse 3, as a first-conditional clause. The kindness of God, which Peter’s audience knows, is the well from which their motivation springs. Their personal knowledge of God’s kindness moves them to put aside those ungodly attitudes and actions of verse 1 and to instead be nourished by the word.
Stephen Xia
9/29/21
THE WORD OF GOD AND THE MESSAGE OF JESUS
Three Evangelists preserve the story about Jesus’ mother and brothers seeking him from outside where he was teaching (Matt 12:46–50; Mark 3:31–35; Luke 8:19–21). Both Matthew and Mark report that Jesus responds by equating those who do “the will” (to thelēma) of God with his true family. In Luke’s version, however, Jesus uses a different phrase: “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God (ton logon tou theou) and do it” (Luke 8:21, NASB95).
While “the word of God” (ho logos tou theou) may sound like a stock, generic phrase, Luke always uses this particular Greek expression to refer to the teaching of Jesus. First, Luke uses the phrase as a summary of Jesus’ preaching (5:1). Second, in the Parable of the Sower, the “seed is the word of God” (8:11) preached to all, but which yields fruit when it meets good soil (8:15). Third, when Jesus declares the blessedness of those who “hear the word of God and observe it” (11:28), it is in between two challenges to Jesus’ claim to speak for God, the Pharisees’ Beelzebul accusation (11:14–26) and the crowds’ implicit demand for a sign (11:29–32). Finally, Luke uses a different Greek phrase, rēma theou, when he notes that “the word of God came to John” the Baptist (3:2), apparently reserving ho logos tou theou for Jesus.
These other uses (along with the non-use) of ho logos tou theou help us to understand Jesus’ intent when we return to Luke 8:21. Jesus is saying that the ones who hear and obey his own message—the good news of the kingdom, the gospel—constitute the family of God. Physical family connection to Jesus was not sufficient for membership in the family of God. Neither was ethnicity a natural boundary line any longer. Jesus says that personal response to him is what counts, and Jesus welcomes anyone who accepts him as we would welcome beloved members of our own families.
Kenneth Trax
9/15/21
EPISTOLARY ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITORY PREACHING
The thanksgiving section of Paul’s letters (marked by eucharistō) can be frustrating for those searching for a single theme or one main point to give coherence to a sermon. This is because the thanksgiving section is often introductory, presenting several key issues in a preliminary way and thus setting the stage for the rest of the letter.
Biblical scholars who examine Paul’s letters in light of ancient letter writing conventions (epistolary analysis) have often noted this “foreshadowing” function of the thanksgiving section. Expository preachers have not often noticed this, but it is beneficial if they do for several reasons.
First, identifying this style can help them identify which themes are critical for the biblical author. The thanksgiving section of Paul’s letter to the Philippians is a good example. Although Paul rarely employs the word chara (joy) in the thanksgiving sections of other letters, he uses it in Phil. 1:4. Thus, he announces one of the most obvious themes of the letter––joy in the midst of adversity (2:2; 2:28; 4:1).
Another example of the foreshadowing function of the thanksgiving section is seen in Phil. 1:5-7 through the theme of the Philippian’s participation in promoting the work of the gospel. His use of koinōnia (“participation”) in verse 5 and synkoinōnos (“partakers”) in verse 7 anticipate the fuller commendation of the church’s partnership through financial generosity (4:14-20).
In addition to helping anticipate key themes of the letter, epistolary analysis can also aid in interpreting disputed texts within the thanksgiving section itself. For instance, Paul writes in Phil. 1:9, “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment” [NASB]. Since “love” (agape) lacks an explicit object some commentators wonder if Paul intends love for God or the Philippians’ love for one another. As unity within the church is a major theme of the letter (1:27-28; 2:1-4), it is best to take Paul’s prayer as anticipating what he will address more fully and directly in the body of the letter. Thus, appreciating this kind of epistolary analysis tilts the discussion in favor of the church’s love for one another.
Another example may be found in Phil. 1:10. Although widely held among early church fathers, some modern interpreters reject the idea that Paul is praying for the church’s ability to distinguish heresy from authentic doctrine as he continues the prayer in Phil. 1:10 (“so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ” [NASB]). They do so on the grounds that such an idea is emphasized nowhere in the immediate context. However, this objection fails to consider the introductory nature of the thanksgiving section. Approving of things more excellent is precisely what Paul himself had to do (3:8, 3:13-14) and the impulse for Paul to share this reality occurs as he is warning the church on the issue related to false teaching and opponents (3:2; 3:18-19).
Epistolary analysis can help the preacher by highlighting key themes the author anticipates, as well as illuminate challenging texts in the thanksgiving section itself. Expository preaching is marked by keen attention to what the biblical author says. But it should also pay attention to how the biblical author says it.
Garrett Craig
9/1/21
ROCK OF ROCKS
In addition to traditional Christian epithets like “King of kings” and “Lord of lords,” Moses offers a more robust and geological suggestion: The Rock of rocks. To the modern ear, this sedimentary title might call to mind the King of Rock Elvis Presley, the excitement of Woodstock, or even Pink Floyd’s 26-minute tribute song, “Shine On You Crazy Diamond,” written in Aeolian mode. With reasonable certainty, however, most scholars argue that Moses did not intend these modern associations. Instead, the metaphor signifies something more foundational and much more interesting.
Throughout the poetic chapter of Deuteronomy 32, Moses calls Yahweh a tsur or “rock” (vv. 4, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37). This divine designation was both conventional and subversive. On the one hand, other nations in the ancient world used similar titles for their deities. For example, the Sumerian and Akkadian peoples referred to some of their deities as a “great rock.” On the other hand, Moses argues that only Yahweh deserves the tsur because unlike all the other pagan gods only the Lord protects his people. In 32:31, he unequivocally states “their tsur is not like our tsur.” And this provocative sentiment reverberates throughout the Hebrew Bible. Samuel affirms that “there is no tsur like our God” (1 Sam 2:2), and Psalm 18:31 asks the rhetorical question, “who is a tsur, except our God?” By using this tsur metaphor, Moses commandeers a common title to supersede any other so-called tsur.
For Moses, the acts of Yahweh in the history of Israel demonstrate that he deserves the title Rock of rocks. After he summons the heavens to witness his prophetic discourse (32:1-3), Moses reminds Israel of God’s nature by extolling the Lord’s greatness and defending his reputation. He does this by calling him a tsur in verse 4. While the tsur metaphor can connote a number of associations, the immediate context explains that Yahweh is tsur-like because he is reliable, faithful, steadfast, and trustworthy. Moses expands the metaphor in verse 15, where he presents Yahweh as a powerful tsur that delivers, protects, and saves (cf. 2 Sam. 22:47; Ps. 95:1). The metaphor takes a strange turn verse 18, when Moses condemns Israel for forgetting their father, Yahweh: “You neglected the tsur who begot you.” Israel owed their entire existence to the Rock of rocks. Finally, the true tsur will punish the enemies of Israel in verse 37, and this will confirm that “the tsur in which they sought refuge” was no tsur at all.
If the church would learn from the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, it might start by incorporating this honorific in its hymnody. To illustrate the point, one can imagine the “Hallelujah” chorus of Handel’s Messiah rewritten to include the glorious phrase “Rock of rocks” alongside the familiar refrain, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” Perhaps at the right moment an electric guitar could join the symphony orchestra, but only for a moment. Even if this is too radical a proposal, the Song of Moses still reminds Christians today that God is in many ways like a tsur: strong, dependable, and trustworthy.
Mitchell Holley
7/7/21
MEALS WITH THE SICK
A Roman banquet symbolized both power and social status. While the richest citizens developed their own ostentatious haute cuisine, others rejected the opulent displays of affluence inherent in these banquets and they developed their own rhetoric of self-control and moderation. Unable to afford these fancy banquets, the average Roman joined groups and social gatherings, where they shared a meal. Food, therefore, had the power to divide the rich from the poor and the insiders from the outsiders. But food also had to power to bind people together despite these social or financial obstacles.
In the Gospel of Luke, this mealtime motif reappears throughout the narrative of Jesus’ life (5:27-32; 9:10-17; 14:7–15, 16–24; 15:11–32; 22:14-38; 24:28-32, et al.), and Luke explains that Jesus strategically participated in these banquets to challenge social and religious exclusivity. The first example comes in Luke 5:27-32. After Jesus calls Levi the tax collector to leave everything behind and follow him, Levi throws a “great banquet” (dochen megalen). This great feast included a strange mix of social outcasts (tax collectors and sinners) as well as some of the religious elite (Pharisees and scribes), and the Pharisees question why Jesus would let the rabble eat at the same table (5:29-30). They missed the point.
Because a shared meal symbolized intimacy, friendship, and unity, Jesus identifies these social outcasts as his new kingdom community. Jesus refused to use a banquet to reinforce the religious or social boundaries between sinners and spiritual elites. The actions of Jesus at this banquet, therefore, represent an embodied discourse, which portends the radical mission of Jesus in the world to bring sinners and the social outsiders into his new kingdom.
Luke links this radically inclusive mission to a Christological commitment: when Jesus came into the world, he came as a “physician” (iatros), and he came to heal the “sick” (kakos). This medical metaphor in 5:31 associates divine redemption, restoration, and forgiveness with good health, and it highlights Christ’s mission of restoration. For he came to make individuals healthy again and to help communities flourish together.
This restorative mission of Christ echoes the vision of Isaiah 25:6-8, where Yahweh prepares a feast for “all peoples,” conquers death forever, and offers everyone reconciliation. The Gospel of Luke reminds all Christians that Jesus initiated that restoration by eating meals with the sick. He foreshadows a day when people will no longer be fractured by social division or status. Rather, everyone connected to Christ by faith will feast together in the presence of the King: “And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:29).
Mitchell Holley
6/23/21
KINGDOM AND RIGHTEOUSNESS
“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided to you.”
How should Christians live in relation to money, materials, and meals? In Matthew 6:33, Jesus instructs his followers on where their priorities should lie. In this verse the Greek word “his” (autou) qualifies both basileian (kingdom) and dikaiosynēn (righteousness). So the NASB rightly has “His kingdom and His righteousness.” This is where Christians should put their focus according to Jesus.
This verse comes as a high point in Jesus’s teaching on anxiety about material possessions in 6:25–34. Jesus negatively commands his disciples not to worry (6:25, 31, 34; cf. 6:27, 28). Here, he positively commands them to “seek.” Instead of worrying about and seeking after earthly materials as the pagans do (6:32a), disciples should seek different objects: the kingdom and righteousness of their heavenly Father (6:26, 32b). Rather than being time-oriented, to seek “first” means to have one’s priorities straight—to have rightly ordered desires toward proper ends.
The terms basileia (kingdom) and dikaiosynē (righteousness) encapsulate two major themes in the Sermon on the Mount that have overlapping meanings, both dealing with God’s rule and reign. A nuanced explanation is needed for righteousness because it is here qualified as “His”—that is, the Father’s—and because Matthew consistently uses righteousness in an ethical sense for disciples. At least three instances of righteousness clearly refer to the ethical righteousness which Jesus commands his disciples to have (5:10, 20; 6:1). The other two uses of righteousness in the Sermon (5:6; 6:33) are similar to each other in that they are attributed to God while still maintaining Matthew’s usual ethical sense. In 5:6, Jesus commends “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” because “they will be satisfied.” They will implicitly be satisfied (chortasthēsontai) by God giving them what they hunger and thirst for, namely righteousness. Similarly, 6:33 says disciples should seek “His righteousness.” Furthermore, the kingdom and righteousness are both the objects of the command “seek,” and since it seems that the kingdom cannot be brought about by disciples (cf. 6:10), righteousness likewise is a gift from God. While this righteousness belongs to God, the verse in its context primarily has an ethical thrust since longing for God’s reign also means living in a way that accords with his character and rule. In short, the Father’s kingdom and righteousness relate conceptually in that both define the behavior of Christ’s followers in light of God’s eschatological reign.
After his command, Jesus promises that “all these things will be added to you.” “All these things” refers to the food, drink, and clothing in this passage. The verb prostethēsetai (will be added) is a future passive in the context of the Father’s care, what is called a divine passive, indicating the Father’s provision for these things. So, reminiscent of the Lord’s Prayer, rather than worrying about money, materials, and meals, disciples should prioritize the Father’s kingdom and will, having faith (6:30) that He will provide their daily needs (6:11).
Morgan Johnson
6/9/21
WHO WILL GO AND GET JESUS?
Near the end of Deuteronomy, having set the law covenant a second time before Israel, Moses stressed to Israel that they had what they need to obey the covenant:
"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it." (Deut. 30:11-14 NASB).
In Romans 10:6-8, Paul quotes Deut 30:12-14 interspersed with a set of interpretive glosses (signaled by the tout estin) that refer to Christ's incarnation and resurrection. How do these two seemingly disparate events relate?
Paul's purpose is perhaps best understood on two levels. The first level is the Deuteronomic frame. By quoting Deuteronomy as the speech of the "righteousness based on faith" (ek pisteōs dikaiosynē ), Paul invites his readers to see the proclamation of two binding covenants of God. That is, Paul places the proclamation of the gospel in the frame of Moses's confirmation of the covenant to Israel. This has two effects. On the one hand, it underscores that the message of Christ's life, death, and resurrection are just as much the word of God as was the covenant of Sinai (cf. Rom 1:17). On the other hand, however, the comparison conveys a sense of warning. Just as God gave Israel the covenant under Moses, so too God has sent the Anointed One (Christos) and raised him from the dead. In neither case could the audience plead ignorance (cf. Rom 10:18). All that remained was to embrace the means of covenant right-standing that God had offered to his people.
On the second level, however, Paul contrasts two forms of righteousness. Romans 10:5-10 supports (indicated by the gar) 10:1-4. The important point to see is that the points of contrast are 10:5 and 10:9. On the one hand, Moses speaks of a righteousness based on the law: that one shall live by doing the commands (likely a quotation from Leviticus 18:5). However, the righteousness based on faith (the "word of faith" in 10:8), speaks “that” or "like this" (houtōs): “[Deuteronomic framing]… if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (10:9) Just as Moses stressed that Israel had access to life through obedience to the covenant of Sinai, Paul stresses that now people can be right with God through the new covenant in Christ.
Paul's urgency is palpable here, and understanding the scene he has evoked deepens our appreciation. Moses was deeply burdened that his people choose life (Deut 30:19), so concerned for their welfare that he was willing to be cut off for their sake (Exod 32:30; cf. Paul in Rom 9:3). So too Paul agonized that his hearers find salvation through Jesus, who through his resurrection from the dead, extends to the ends of the earth and all peoples (Matt 28:18-20; Luke 24:27).
Jim Dernell
5/26/21
GOD MEANT IT FOR GOOD
Genesis 50:20, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” This might very well be one of the most profound statements in all of Scripture. The use of tira’u at the end of verse 19 and at the beginning of verse 21 form an inclusion and place verse 20 as a key thought for the whole narrative. This verse parallels closely the idea that Joseph spoke in Genesis 45:8, “It was not you who sent me here, but God.”
The contrast in verse 20 is clearly set in the two statements, “you meant evil against me” and “God meant it for good.” There is an omission of the word “but” in the Hebrew text, however, since the phrases are in juxtaposition, there is a presupposed logical relationship between them. Moreover, because there is a negative sense, an antithesis is set up that enhances the opposition between the two clauses. Therefore, the “but” is strongly implied into the context as the NASB rightly renders.
We know that the brothers hated Joseph from Genesis 37. After Joseph tells the dream of the sheaves, his brothers hate him even more. Their hatred eventually leads them to conspire to kill him. However, instead of killing him, they decide to throw him into a pit and sell him off as a slave. To sell Joseph into slavery was perhaps worse than death because it would force him into the lowliest position possible, that of a slave. This is the evil that the brothers committed against Joseph, but Joseph had come to grips with this evil long ago because he knew full well the second phrase, “God meant it for good.”
Commenting on this passage, James Montgomery Boice writes, “On the one hand, there is a dreadful, sinful reality; on the other, there is an aspect of the greatness of God that overcomes it…It is only against the background of the reality of this evil that the good providence of God has real meaning.” This was not Joseph making lemonade out of lemons, but this was Joseph trusting in the sovereign God of the universe. He could have become paralyzed at all the evil that was done to him, but instead he kept going because he saw the hand of God upon his life.
Long before it was written, Joseph understood Romans 8:28, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” This verse does not say “some things,” but “all things.” Joseph truly believed that God was working all the things in his life, even his trials and temptations. He saw all the evil that was done to him, yet it was long forgiven in his heart because he knew what God meant to do, to place Joseph in prime position to preserve the people of God.
Can God use evil for good? Praise be to God that the answer is a resounding yes!
Eugene P. Cho
5/12/21
THE BORNE VOICE
2 Peter 1:16-21
The letter of 2 Peter is an often-overlooked portion of the New Testament, including for preachers. At first glance it doesn’t seem like a very preachable book. However, there’s actually more going on than merely a list of virtues followed by a list of invectives against false teachers.
Second Peter 1:16–21 is most often read to emphasize the historical foundations of the Christian faith (vv. 16–18) or the inspiration of Scripture (vv. 19–21). But there is an important connection between these subsections that helps to illuminate Peter’s point. The connection is Peter’s use of the verb pherо̄ (“bear, carry”), which occurs four times in these verses. We will take the subsections in reverse order.
In the second subsection (1:19–21), Peter is emphasizing the divine origin of prophecy. He writes that no prophecy was borne (ēnechthē) “by an act of human will.” Rather, true prophets are those who are borne (pheromenoi) “by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (1:21). The prophets and their prophecies were the very voice of God being borne from heaven to generations waiting for the coming of the Messiah (cf. 1 Pet 1:10–12).
In the first subsection, we read that at the Transfiguration a voice was borne (phonēs enechtheisēs) “to Him by the Majestic Glory.” The disciples are not relaying made-up stories, for they were “eyewitnesses of His majesty” (1:16) and heard the divine voice borne (tēn phonēn enechtheisan) “from heaven” (1:18). They heard God himself speak, declaring Jesus to be his own Son. Peter is here claiming that he and his fellow apostles stand in the line of the prophets who went before; like them, he has seen heavenly realities and has heard God’s voice “borne” from heaven explaining them.
But Peter is also claiming to stand at the culmination of that prophetic line—which brings us to verse 19. Peter and his fellow apostles are not just another instance of prophets. The NASB inserts the word “so” at the beginning of the verse, rightly noting how the apostle’s experience is the final certifier of the prophetic message: “And so we have the prophetic word made more sure.” The voice that had been borne from heaven by the prophets of old, testifying in advance along with shadowy visions to the coming of the Messianic age, was now spoken directly by God to eyewitnesses over the arrived Messiah himself.
According to Peter (1:19), the prophetic words coupled with the apostles’ announcement of fulfillment still have more to speak to God’s people. Until the Messiah returns and all is fulfilled, we must “pay attention” to these words. It is the borne words of the prophets confirmed by the borne voice of God to the apostles which will keep readers from giving in to licentious false teachers who are like the false prophets of old (2:1ff). It is these words which will keep readers waiting patiently for the day when God will judge and restore all things (3:1–18).
“Remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles” (3:2). These words are God’s borne voice.
Paul Lamicela
4/27/21
THE TEST OF FAITHFUL AND UNFAITHFUL LEADERSHIP
Acts 20:33
What is the test of faithful Christian leadership? Is it fidelity to the word of God? Is it suffering joyfully for the sake of the gospel? Or, is it personal holiness and devotion to a knowing God? Of course, all of those answers, and others, are correct. But, Paul emphasizes a specific benchmark which is often overlooked: freedom from being motivated by financial gain.
In his farewell address at Miletus, Paul defends his ministry by asserting, “I desired (epethymēsa) the gold, silver, or clothing of no one” (Acts 20:33). By paying attention to the Greek behind this translation, it is possible to see that Paul echoes the Tenth Commandment from the Ten Commandments by using the verb epithumeō (see Rom 7:7; 13:9).
In the Old Testament, there are patterns of sin, and one particularly disturbing one is that the Tenth Commandment is repeatedly violated by the political, economic, and religious elite. To give a few examples, 1 Samuel 11–12 describes how David, motivated by covetousness, committed adultery with Bathsheba and orchestrated the murder of Uriah. Also, 1 Kings 21 describes how Ahab coveted the vineyard of Naboth, and Jezebel designed a scheme of false witness and murder in order to claim it. In both of these narratives, monarchs abuse their authority to secure the object of their covetousness. Micah describes how the rich and powerful take what they desire from those weaker than them: “They covet (wĕḥomdû) fields, so they seize them; and houses, so they take them. They exploit a man and his house, a person and his inheritance” (Mic 2:2). In this indictment, Micah uses the vocabulary of the Tenth Word to describe the way that the powerful oppress the weak (see Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21). Of course, covetousness is not limited to the elite, as if they are a special class of people predisposed toward a certain type of desire. Instead, the covetousness of the powerful receives specific attention in the Old Testament, because they are in a position to act on their covetousness. While everyone covets, not everyone is a king or wealthy landowner who can acquire their desire.
In light of this Old Testament pattern of sin, it makes sense why Paul would have chosen to use the language of the Tenth Commandment when defending his ministry in Acts 20:33. Paul was a powerful and respected individual in the early church, and he could have abused that influence for personal financial gain. By not doing so, Paul provides a powerful example for Christian leaders throughout the ages.
Coye Still
4/13/21
PRIORITIES IN THE GREAT COMMISSION
Matthew 28:19-20
Good exegesis attempts to do more than merely describe the content of a text’s individual sentences. It organizes that content and puts it into a hierarchy of sorts. Even when a text does not seem to yield to a singular main point, usually an interpreter can still discern certain peaks and valleys.
Take the famous Great Commission, for instance. The NASB renders the text as follows: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all that I commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20a [NASB]). If you were to preach this passage, on what point would you focus and why?
Would you focus on the “going”? Would you focus on the “disciple making”? Or would you focus on the “baptizing and teaching”? Of course, all of these to some degree would be appropriate since they are clearly all important to the text. However, understanding how Greek structures information helps us to better bring our peaks and valleys in line with Matthew’s.
Unlike English, which primarily uses coordinating conjunctions like “and,” “or,” and “but,” Greek tends to use subordinate clauses to structures the information in their paragraphs. Languages like English are called paratactic languages, whereas languages like Greek are called hypotactic languages.
Matthew makes use of this hypotactic technique to help the reader discern the contours of his famous command. The NASB’s preservation of the Greek participles baptizontes and didaskontes with their English counterparts “baptizing” and “teaching” already gets us halfway there. Clearly, neither of these is Matthew’s focus. They describe the means by which the main action is to be done.
But again, what is that main action? Is it “going” or “disciple making?” Although we need to be careful how much we make of this point, Matthew seems to suggest the latter. The word behind the English command “go” is actually the participle poreuthentes, which should draw the reader’s attention to the one imperative in the entire sentence—mathēteusate or “make disciples.”
In English, rendering the participle as an imperative is perfectly fine, even irresistible. There are multiple places where a Greek participle seems to carry an imperatival force (e.g., Matt 2:20). The point though is that, even if “go” is a command, in using a participle Matthew points to disciple making as the high point of the passage. That is what he is emphasizing, and recognizing the hypotactic nature of Greek helps us to follow his lead.
Jarrett Ford
3/9/21
DON'T BE WORTHLESS GRAPES
Isaiah 5:1-7
“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” This opening line from Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18 is widely known. But what is it that makes Shakespeare’s sonnets so popular and so stirring? A main reason would be Shakespeare’s mastery of the English language and his ability to paint a beautiful literary picture in the mind of the audience. In Sonnet 18, the drawn-out metaphor of a summer’s day stirs our imaginations and helps convey the message of love that resonates deep in our souls. In essence, the use of metaphors, imagery, and wordplays in literature adds vibrancy to words and makes the message more memorable.
The Old Testament writers also had a way with words, using metaphors and wordplays prolifically. And if we are willing to look, we will find these metaphors and wordplays everywhere through the Old Testament, but especially in the Prophets. Some of these word plays are noticeable in English, while others are only noticeable in the original Hebrew. But the metaphors almost always stand out, even as they pass from one language to another.
In Isaiah 5, God writes a song for his own dearly “beloved [yadid].” A song that has echoes of love from the Song of Solomon, who too writes a love song for his “beloved [dod].” But instead of comparing God’s people to a summer’s day, the prophet Isaiah compares them to a vineyard and grapes. Out of love for his people, God placed them on, “a fertile hill. He dug it all around, removed its stones, and planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it and also hewed out a wine vat in it” (Isaiah 5:1b-2a). Isaiah uses the metaphor of a vineyard to vividly describe everything God did to make his vineyard the most fruitful vineyard ever.
Yet, this song, which describes the love Yahweh has for his people takes an abrupt turn. God rightfully expected good and plentiful grapes, but instead his vineyard “produced only worthless ones” (5:2). And because of this, God pronounces judgment on his people (5:3–6), and in Isaiah 5:7, he summarizes his feelings in a clever, yet heart-wrenching wordplay. For when God looked for justice [mišpāt] from his people, he got bloodshed [miśpāch] instead; when God looked for righteousness [tsedāqāh], all he heard was a “cry of distress [tse‘āqāh] (5:7b).
And while those who cannot read Hebrew may miss this wordplay, a good commentary or preacher can help to bring this vivid imagery to life. But even still, the message beneath the metaphor of the vineyard rings abundantly clear for any reader.
Maybe what is so striking about this passage is that God’s people were clearly doing everything right on the outside (Isaiah 1:11-15), yet their hearts were clearly not right with God (Isaiah 1:16-17). In short, their hearts did not break for what breaks God’s heart – a theme which is prominent throughout all the Prophets. Jesus would echo this same judgment centuries later, when he called the religious leaders “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27-28).
So, may we let Scripture shock us with its vivid imagery and may our hearts break for what breaks God’s heart. Don’t be worthless grapes. And with God’s help, may we seek justice and righteousness as God’s people.
Joel Lawrence
2/23/21
DOERS OF THE LAW
Romans 2:14-15
Paul, the apostle of sola fide, the man who wrote “by works of the Law no flesh will be justified,” (Rom 3:20a [NASB]), also wrote this: “for it is not the hearers [akroatai] of the Law who are just before God, but the doers [poiētai] of the Law will be justified” (Rom 2:13 [NASB]; emphasis added). This odd statement is part of the reason N. T. Wright has famously labeled Romans 2 as “the joker in the pack.” It just doesn’t seem to fit Paul, the anti-works apostle.
This apparent discrepancy has driven many interpreters to simply give up, to abandon any hope of rescuing the apostle’s argument from the pangs of contradiction. This resignation, however, is premature. Paul was obviously a smart guy, and even if one does not hold to traditional views of the Bible’s inspiration, a view that Paul was confused and self-contradictory is unlikely on the basis of Paul’s intelligence alone.
Since at least the time of Calvin, many have claimed that Paul’s statement here is hypothetical. That is, any doer of the Law would indeed be justified; the problem is there is no such person. Paul, according to this view, is merely explaining what would happen if it were somehow possible for a depraved sinner to overcome the effects of the fall and live a perfectly righteous life all by himself, a point Paul later clearly denies (e.g., Rom 3:23). Paul affirms that such a justification may be theoretically possible, but not actually so.
Although this view does justice to Paul’s overall logic, it doesn’t fit into the flow and context of his argument. There is nothing in the immediate context that would commend the hypothetical view. Moreover, there is a better way of understanding.
Immediately after uttering this enigma, Paul provides his readers with an example of the type of person he is talking about. “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them” (Rom 2:14–15 [NASB]). The clause to take note of is in verse 15. There Paul says that these Gentiles “show the work of the Law written on their hearts,” that is, they demonstrate themselves to be recipients of the New Covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:33 (38:33 in the LXX). They are Christians, men and women who have been born of the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 2:29).
This statement about doers of the Law being justified, therefore, is not a problem to a Protestant interpretation. Paul is not denying that a person is justified by faith alone. He is affirming that those who are so justified change. They become real doers of God’s will (cf. Rom 8:4). They do not remain mere hearers. Thus, Paul is neither speaking hypothetically here nor is he anti-works. He clearly thought that faith alone saves, but he also thought that the faith that does save is never alone.
Jarrett Ford
2/9/21
IMITATION GAME
Philippians 2:5
Emperor Augustus, the adopted son of Julius Caesar, described himself as the “Restorer of the Republic.” He instituted moral reforms across the empire and tried to restore traditional Roman virtues. Stories of Augustus were told as moral examples for the next generations to imitate, and in an illiterate society, virtuous role models became the primary mode of moral education.
In Philippians 2:1-11, Paul exalts Christ as the ultimate moral example for the Christian community. Specifically, Paul highlights the proper “thinking” of Christ as a model to emulate. The verb phroneо̄ (“to think”) occurs three times in 2:1-5 and ten times in the letter (1:7, 2:2, 2:5, 3:15, 3:19, 4:10). Paul makes correct “thinking” the pressing issue in 2:5 when he says, “Have this attitude (phroneо̄) in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus” (NASB Phil 2:5). Christ’s example in 2:5-11 shows how virtuous thinking leads to virtuous action.
First, Christ thought rightly about himself and others. In 2:6, Paul explains that Christ considered, or “regarded” (as the NASB translates it), himself properly. This verb hēgeomai, “to consider,” includes the intellectual process of thinking, and is similar to phroneо̄ above. Although he was divine, Christ did not consider his equality with God as something to be used for his own advantage. He refused to act selfishly, and he understood his divinity as an opportunity to serve his people by becoming a man (2:7). Christians who “regard” themselves correctly will not pursue “selfish ambition” (2:3) and they will not “look out for their own interests” (2:4). Rather, a Christian will “regard” other people as more important than himself or herself (2:3).
Second, Christ acted humbly by dying on the cross. Just like the Gospels portray Christ as the pattern of humility (Matt 11:29; 18:4; Luke 1:51–53; 14:11), Paul explains that Christ’s self-humiliation resulted in his death on the cross. “He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (NASB Phil 2:8). Similarly, the Christian community will achieve unity and harmony only when they reject all forms of self-seeking and act “humbly” towards each other (2:3–4).
Greek and Roman poets often wrote songs of praise to Emperor Augustus to commemorate his virtues and educate the masses. Paul responds to these Greco-Roman poets with a hymn about the humiliation and exaltation of Christ, whose “name is above every name” (2:9). In this hymn, Christ is the paragon of virtue, and his glorious actions of humility, love, and self-sacrifice emerge from his virtuous “thinking” about himself and others.
Mitchell L. Holley
1/26/21
GRABBING SMOKE
Ecclesiastes 1:2
“Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
The Preacher’s dictum delivers the theme of Ecclesiastes. But what does vanity (Hebrew, hebel) mean? The need to define what the Preacher of Ecclesiastes means is heightened by the syntax of the original language, which is constructed as a superlative. “Vanity of vanities” means that all things are not merely vain, but are the vainest they could possibly be.
In our superficial social media era, the word “vain” is lobbed out as an insult of self-indulgence. If you know Carly Simon you might be thinking this song is about you. Those who live in our modern culture of self-indulgence with our focus on the individual might are often at a loss to make sense of the Preacher’s words.
The word “vanity” comes into the English language through Jerome’s translation of the Preacher’s hebel as vanitas. Within the early Christian tradition the Preacher’s call of vanity was understood as a critique of the value of the world itself. Later, during the Reformation, vanity is primarily used as a critique on the desires for the things of the world. The editors of the NASB supply an editorial note to help us make sense of the meaning. Vanity could also be described as “futility.”
In Ecclesiastes, the scope of what the Preacher calls vanity or futile is somewhat starling: pleasures (2:1), effort and labor (2:11, 23), folly and wisdom (2:15, 19), leaving things to be enjoyed by others (2:21), futility of sin (2:26), death (3:19), envy of what others have (4:4), dissatisfaction (4:8), leading others (5:16), dreams (5:7), wealth and love of wealth (5:10; 6:2), too many words (6:11; 7:6), the wicked don’t get what they deserve (8:10), the righteous get what they don’t deserve (8:14), old age (11:8), and even youth (11:10).
Broadening the scope to the rest of the OT to discern what the Preacher is saying about the long list in the paragraph above brings some clarity to his meaning. Hebel in the Old Testament is used to refer to mist and smoke as Proverbs 21:6 states, “The getting of treasures by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor (hebel) and a snare of death.” The idols worshipped by Israel and the surrounding nations are described as hebel (Isa 57:13; Jer 51:18; Jonah 2:9; pl. hebelīm, Deut 32:21; 1 Kings 16:13, 26; Jer 8:19, 10:8; 14:22). Hebel is also used to describe the fleeting nature of human existence (Ps 39:7; Job 9:29). In Ecclesiastes the Preacher warns against investing our energy in the pursuit of the things of life for their sake alone. This is the path to idolatry.
It is good to enjoy the creation God has given us, as the Preacher says multiple times (Ecc 2:24; 8:15). Nonetheless, the Preacher’s words remind us that making anything our life’s pursuit besides God, even the good things in life, is like trying to grab smoke.
Trey Moss
1/12/21
JOHN AND ELIJAH
Matthew 14:1-12
John the Baptist’s role as forerunner of Jesus seems straightforward at first glance, but John’s relationship to Elijah proves more difficult to understand. How is John like Elijah? In Matthew 14:1–12, Matthew shows that John’s relationship to Elijah is intricately tied to his preparing the way for Jesus.
John’s death clearly parallels and foreshadows Jesus’s death. Both men were “arrested/seized [krateō]” and “bound [deō]” (14:3; 21:46; 27:2). Both had high-ranking officials responsible for their deaths. Both officials feared crowds because they held John and Jesus to be prophets (14:5; 21:46). Both officials were asked by another to kill them and did so reluctantly (14:6–11; 27:11–26). Both officials had wives who played primary though opposite roles in their deaths (14:3–11; 27:19). Both John and Jesus were buried by their disciples (14:12; 27:57–61). All of these parallels converge so that John’s death clearly foreshadows Jesus’s.
But John is also connected to Elijah. After the transfiguration (17:1–8), Jesus, Peter, James, and John come down from the mountain, and Jesus tells them not to tell anyone about it until after his resurrection. The disciples ask him, “Why then [oun] do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” (17:10 NASB). This connective particle oun likely refers back to their experience in seeing Jesus with Elijah on the mountain, and they are wondering if this appearance of Elijah is the coming that Malachi 4:5–6 predicts. Jesus affirms the prediction but corrects their futuristic understanding: “Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands” (17:11–12 NASB). The disciples then understand “that He has spoken to them about John the Baptist” (17:13). They killed John because of his message of the kingdom that sought to restore all things. Likewise, they will kill Jesus because of his message of the kingdom that fulfilled John’s message to restore all things. John and Jesus are thus inextricably linked, and John’s death in 14:1–12 serves as a grave foreshadowing of Jesus’s crucifixion.
Additionally, John’s death and Jesus’s subsequent feeding of the five-thousand parallels Elijah’s ascension and Elisha’s feeding of one-hundred men. In 2 Kings 1–4, Elijah defies Ahaziah, ascends into heaven, and then after a series of miracles including a healing, Elisha miraculously multiplies bread for one-hundred men. In Matthew 14, John the Baptist defies Herod, undergoes martyrdom, and then Jesus multiplies bread for five-thousand men, followed by the healing of many. The clear connections between Jesus’s feeding of the five-thousand and Elijah’s feeding of the one-hundred confirm Matthew’s intended parallel between Elisha and Jesus. The close proximity of Elijah’s ascension to Elisha’s feeding and John’s martyrdom to Jesus’s feeding further connect John the Baptist with Elijah. Thus, Jesus succeeds John as the eschatological prophet of the kingdom and fulfills John’s foreshadowing of Jesus’s ultimate restoration of all things through his own death on the cross.
Ben Hussung