The book of Job can be very hard to read. As I work my way through it I find that I am not sure who is right and who is wrong. I suspect that is part of how the book of Job functions. It deliberately disturbs us. However, there are a few things that can help orientate us.
First, as the reader we are privileged to information that Job doesn't know. In chapter 1 we get the curtain pulled back to discover that God is not angry with Job and is not punishing him. Job is in fact an example of the righteous who suffer.
Second, what Job lacks is vindication. Job knows that he is not suffering because of sin on his part. But he doesn't know that God knows that. His so called comforters assume that Job suffers because he has sinned in some way. We can so easily be like those comforters: we assume that because I am suffering God is somehow punishing me.
Third, another big theme is God's sovereignty. This becomes especially clear when we hit the final chapters. The LORD reminds Job that he is God, not Job.
Fourth, Job shows us the importance of being honest in prayer. Job is not condemned for that.
Fifth, the book of Job warns us against trite theological responses to suffering. At the end of the book Job's "comforters" are the ones God says have sinned.
Sixth, the book of Job points us to Christ. Job knows that "his redeemer lives" and he longs for someone to be his advocate before God. In short, Job longs for the assurance that the exalted Lord Jesus brings. Jesus' vindication to God's right hand means that all those who have faith in him are declared righteous by God himself. In Christ, we are sure of God's verdict and do not need to defend ourselves.
On top of that, we know that since God has declared us righteous, the awesomely sovereign one is our heavenly Father. What he puts us through is for our good and cannot separate us from the love of God.
All in all, Job is longing for Romans 5 and Romans 8.
As a final comment, Job shows more of what it means for Jesus to learn obedience through what he suffered (Heb 5:8). If Job suffered as a righteous person, Jesus suffered far more. Given similar suffering to Job I would have to be at most godly to even come close to praying like he does. And yet Jesus faced far greater suffering than Job. But his prayer is very different from Job's: "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from. Yet not what I will, but what you will."
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
The problem of religion
Here is a great (and rightly disturbing) quote from Keller:
Religion, generally speaking, tends to create a slippery slope in the heart. Each religion informs its followers that they have 'the truth', and this naturally leads them to feel superior to those with differing beliefs. Also, a religion tells its followers that they are saved and connected to God by devotedly performing that truth. This moves them to separate from those who are less devoted and pure in life. Therefore, it is easy for one religious group to stereotype and caricature other ones. Once this situation exists it can easily spiral down into the marginalisation of others or even to active oppression, abuse, or violence against them.
Keller, The Reason for God, 4
The scary thing is that paragraph can be just as much applied to groups within Christianity than religious groups "out there". The heart-problem of superiority is a particular danger for people like myself who rightly hold a very high view of Scripture.
I constantly forget that the message that Scripture reveals is a message of God's total grace. If I have understood it rightly, it is because of his illumination. If I have responded to it, it is because of his work of regeneration. If I am being changed by it, it is because of his work of sanctification.
That should not lead me to feel superior, but rejoice in God's grace.
Religion, generally speaking, tends to create a slippery slope in the heart. Each religion informs its followers that they have 'the truth', and this naturally leads them to feel superior to those with differing beliefs. Also, a religion tells its followers that they are saved and connected to God by devotedly performing that truth. This moves them to separate from those who are less devoted and pure in life. Therefore, it is easy for one religious group to stereotype and caricature other ones. Once this situation exists it can easily spiral down into the marginalisation of others or even to active oppression, abuse, or violence against them.
Keller, The Reason for God, 4
The scary thing is that paragraph can be just as much applied to groups within Christianity than religious groups "out there". The heart-problem of superiority is a particular danger for people like myself who rightly hold a very high view of Scripture.
I constantly forget that the message that Scripture reveals is a message of God's total grace. If I have understood it rightly, it is because of his illumination. If I have responded to it, it is because of his work of regeneration. If I am being changed by it, it is because of his work of sanctification.
That should not lead me to feel superior, but rejoice in God's grace.
Godly competitiveness
I am naturally competitive. This has disadvantages. Early on in my marriage I discovered that competitiveness can be destructive. Competing with our children is also not good for them. My inclination then is to say that competitiveness is bad and to be avoided. So that streak in my character needs to be washed away.
However, I have had a rethink - repentance, if you like. Competitiveness is something to be redeemed and not rejected out right. There are obvious examples of where competitiveness can be a good thing. If we are a member of a sports team competitiveness is a good thing. But this must be redeemed competitiveness. People and relationships are more important than winning the game. And thats not just people and relationships on our team, it is both teams. If competing and winning become our functional god during the game then our competitiveness has turned into idolatry.
There is also a question of what we glory in when we win. If it is our skill and ability and how great we are, all that sounds like we are taking the praise due to the one who gave us the skill and ability. And if we lose, if we behave as if the world has ended it is starting to look as if our winning has become for us life and death. In short, idolatry.
However, and this has helped me, there is one person/thing we compete against in such a way to his destruction. We can glory in his defeat and live to spite him. That person/thing is the devil. So, we do have a real enemy to compete against. This is a life or death struggle. The great thing is, in Christ we are on the winning team, and in Christ's strength we can compete against him and win.
So, the devil wants to make us disunited as Christians. Lets compete with him to be as united as possible. The devil wants to sow seeds of doubt when we sin. Let's compete with him to be close to the cross as possible. We can compete and win!
However, I have had a rethink - repentance, if you like. Competitiveness is something to be redeemed and not rejected out right. There are obvious examples of where competitiveness can be a good thing. If we are a member of a sports team competitiveness is a good thing. But this must be redeemed competitiveness. People and relationships are more important than winning the game. And thats not just people and relationships on our team, it is both teams. If competing and winning become our functional god during the game then our competitiveness has turned into idolatry.
There is also a question of what we glory in when we win. If it is our skill and ability and how great we are, all that sounds like we are taking the praise due to the one who gave us the skill and ability. And if we lose, if we behave as if the world has ended it is starting to look as if our winning has become for us life and death. In short, idolatry.
However, and this has helped me, there is one person/thing we compete against in such a way to his destruction. We can glory in his defeat and live to spite him. That person/thing is the devil. So, we do have a real enemy to compete against. This is a life or death struggle. The great thing is, in Christ we are on the winning team, and in Christ's strength we can compete against him and win.
So, the devil wants to make us disunited as Christians. Lets compete with him to be as united as possible. The devil wants to sow seeds of doubt when we sin. Let's compete with him to be close to the cross as possible. We can compete and win!
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Christian financial investment
I am not an economist nor an accountant, so I speak here on things I know little about. However, I do know something of my own heart.
You see, I like my financial savings and investments to do as well as possible. So, hitherto, in my rather naive way I have not really connected my Christianity with my savings. Yes, I have thought about giving and generosity and the like, but after that, I just stick the money that is left into the savings, investments and pensions that give the best return, right?
And there is my heart exposed. So often I want to have things both ways so that me in the middle get the best of both worlds. Think of sin. We want to have all the blessings of living in the world of a God who loves, who gives his all, who relates, without actually loving him, giving him our all and relating to him.
Similarly with my money. When I spend, I want the cheapest price for the finest quality possible. When I invest, I want the greatest return. And there lies the problem. You could say this is good stewardship. Well you could. But actually, stripped of all it's niceness this is essentially greed. In reality I am thinking of my money in a totally isolated way as if there is no other factors to consider other than how much (or little) of it I have. In short, I want savings and investments that yield the greatest profit (regardless of any other factor) and I want expenditure to yield for me the greatest return (regardless of any other factor).
For example, let's say my savings are invested by my bank in a large retail company. In order for my money to have the greatest return the company needs to keep costs down and profits up. As a shareholder, that is what my bank will want. Let's say that retail company is also where I buy my clothes. When I go in, I want the products to be as competitively priced as possible. Now is the problem. As the consumer and part owner (through my investments) I want a good return at both ends. In some cases that might simply be impossible. However, the reality is that the people who will get squeezed are the ones in the middle: the manufacturers, the distributors, the staff etc.
Now this is basic stuff, but that means I can't think of my financial transactions, savings and expenditure purely in terms of money. To do so is to pretend that money has its own moral framework or exists in a moral vacuum. The reality is other factors need to inform my choice of expenditure and investment than simply price or return.
And that means as Christians, good stewardship does not necessarily mean our financial investments increase in financial value. If we are going to invest, we need to think seriously about what we are investing in and be concerned for our gain last rather than first. Given the great commandments, our first concern ought to be what will bring glory to God, and second what will help others. It strikes me as odd, and exposes the depths of my sin, that I haven't even thought like this with regard to my savings and spending before! And yet, of course, Jesus encourages us to use our money generously and to use it to make friends for ourselves (see Luke 16:9).
Now, this is where I think the rubber hits the road in terms of Christians and living distinctively. Before I say what I am going to say, I don't think we should deliberately make ourselves bankrupt etc. But, if we are serious about reaching the world with the gospel and then living in such a way as to be concerned for God's glory then we need to be willing for our material quality of life to decrease, to downsize our house, reduce our mortgage and see the value of savings, investments and pensions reduce in real terms. That is uncomfortable.
THe problem is of course, I have turned money into my functional saviour in this world. It is my first port of call for any problems and it is my security for the future. But if I am building my future security on investments and transactions that are not built on a love for God or love for others how am I any different from the world?
You see, I like my financial savings and investments to do as well as possible. So, hitherto, in my rather naive way I have not really connected my Christianity with my savings. Yes, I have thought about giving and generosity and the like, but after that, I just stick the money that is left into the savings, investments and pensions that give the best return, right?
And there is my heart exposed. So often I want to have things both ways so that me in the middle get the best of both worlds. Think of sin. We want to have all the blessings of living in the world of a God who loves, who gives his all, who relates, without actually loving him, giving him our all and relating to him.
Similarly with my money. When I spend, I want the cheapest price for the finest quality possible. When I invest, I want the greatest return. And there lies the problem. You could say this is good stewardship. Well you could. But actually, stripped of all it's niceness this is essentially greed. In reality I am thinking of my money in a totally isolated way as if there is no other factors to consider other than how much (or little) of it I have. In short, I want savings and investments that yield the greatest profit (regardless of any other factor) and I want expenditure to yield for me the greatest return (regardless of any other factor).
For example, let's say my savings are invested by my bank in a large retail company. In order for my money to have the greatest return the company needs to keep costs down and profits up. As a shareholder, that is what my bank will want. Let's say that retail company is also where I buy my clothes. When I go in, I want the products to be as competitively priced as possible. Now is the problem. As the consumer and part owner (through my investments) I want a good return at both ends. In some cases that might simply be impossible. However, the reality is that the people who will get squeezed are the ones in the middle: the manufacturers, the distributors, the staff etc.
Now this is basic stuff, but that means I can't think of my financial transactions, savings and expenditure purely in terms of money. To do so is to pretend that money has its own moral framework or exists in a moral vacuum. The reality is other factors need to inform my choice of expenditure and investment than simply price or return.
And that means as Christians, good stewardship does not necessarily mean our financial investments increase in financial value. If we are going to invest, we need to think seriously about what we are investing in and be concerned for our gain last rather than first. Given the great commandments, our first concern ought to be what will bring glory to God, and second what will help others. It strikes me as odd, and exposes the depths of my sin, that I haven't even thought like this with regard to my savings and spending before! And yet, of course, Jesus encourages us to use our money generously and to use it to make friends for ourselves (see Luke 16:9).
Now, this is where I think the rubber hits the road in terms of Christians and living distinctively. Before I say what I am going to say, I don't think we should deliberately make ourselves bankrupt etc. But, if we are serious about reaching the world with the gospel and then living in such a way as to be concerned for God's glory then we need to be willing for our material quality of life to decrease, to downsize our house, reduce our mortgage and see the value of savings, investments and pensions reduce in real terms. That is uncomfortable.
THe problem is of course, I have turned money into my functional saviour in this world. It is my first port of call for any problems and it is my security for the future. But if I am building my future security on investments and transactions that are not built on a love for God or love for others how am I any different from the world?
Monday, 13 February 2012
More on repentance
I am currently working on Zechariah for a sermon on Zechariah 1-2 next Sunday evening. Zechariah 1:1-6 is particularly interesting for thinking about repentance.
The ESV and NIV both translate the second half of 1:6 with the word "repent":
Then they repented....
However, in the original Hebrew, the word is the same word as in 1:3 when the LORD says:
Return to me...and I will return to you.
In both 1:3 and in 1:6 it is the Hebrew word for "return." Really, 1:6 ought to be translated "They they returned and said..."
Interestingly, that is exactly what the translators of the Septuagint choose to do. They translate the hebrew word consistently with the same greek word epistrepho which means "return" or "turn back." In fact, only once in Zechariah do the LXX translators use the greek word metanoio and that is in Zech 8:14. I give how the ESV translates it:
For thus says the LORD of hosts: “As I purposed to bring disaster to you when your fathers provoked me to wrath, and I did not relent, says the LORD of host..., (emphasis added)
The above highlights two possible things.
First, that the greek word metanoio was not used so much when the LXX was being translated (given that it only occurs 19 times in the canonical LXX, (31 including the non-canonical books)). I will spend some time looking in more detail at this at a later stage.
Second, that the english word "repent" has come to have a different semantic range (i.e. a different range of meaning) to the greek word metanoio.
This, I think, is confirmed by the fact that metanoio and its cognate noun only occur 56 times in the NT (interestingly, translated consistently with the English word "repent" (in the ESV)). By comparison pisteuo (trust/believe) and its cognates occur 241 times in the NT.
So, what do we do?
I think someone needs to look seriously into what repentance actually is. This is a fairly important topic.
The ESV and NIV both translate the second half of 1:6 with the word "repent":
Then they repented....
However, in the original Hebrew, the word is the same word as in 1:3 when the LORD says:
Return to me...and I will return to you.
In both 1:3 and in 1:6 it is the Hebrew word for "return." Really, 1:6 ought to be translated "They they returned and said..."
Interestingly, that is exactly what the translators of the Septuagint choose to do. They translate the hebrew word consistently with the same greek word epistrepho which means "return" or "turn back." In fact, only once in Zechariah do the LXX translators use the greek word metanoio and that is in Zech 8:14. I give how the ESV translates it:
For thus says the LORD of hosts: “As I purposed to bring disaster to you when your fathers provoked me to wrath, and I did not relent, says the LORD of host..., (emphasis added)
The above highlights two possible things.
First, that the greek word metanoio was not used so much when the LXX was being translated (given that it only occurs 19 times in the canonical LXX, (31 including the non-canonical books)). I will spend some time looking in more detail at this at a later stage.
Second, that the english word "repent" has come to have a different semantic range (i.e. a different range of meaning) to the greek word metanoio.
This, I think, is confirmed by the fact that metanoio and its cognate noun only occur 56 times in the NT (interestingly, translated consistently with the English word "repent" (in the ESV)). By comparison pisteuo (trust/believe) and its cognates occur 241 times in the NT.
So, what do we do?
I think someone needs to look seriously into what repentance actually is. This is a fairly important topic.
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Repenting of repentance
So, I've been a Christian a while, through theological college, preaching for a few years. But last week I was brought up short and humbled. My understanding of repentance was seriously skewed, if not outright wrong. I am thankful to a talk I was listening to that highlighted it so clearly.
I had thought that repentance included within it a change of behaviour. I've repented of a sin if I have stopped doing it. As I say that, you will probably immediately see the problem with that understanding. You may get it, but it has taken me until now. If we have a biblical view of our sin, then I will only be free from my sin when I go to be with Christ or he comes back for us. Sin is all pervasive. How can I repent of my pride if repentance means not being proud anymore? I will struggle with pride until I die.
The knock on effects of understanding repentance as I did are major. For instance, in one of our Anglican confessions we say the line
We are heartily sorry, and repent of all our sins
How do I say that? I am not free of my sins. I haven't actually repented of them all.
Likewise, Jesus preaching The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" is strange (Mark 1:15). He must be saying "change your behaviour and believe." That is not a message of salvation by faith alone, but changed-life by your own effort and faith on top of that.
Similarly, John the Baptist says he baptises with water for repentance. But after me will come one... who will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt 3:11). If repentance is about changed behaviour that is likewise odd. If John's baptism is about a changed life, why the need for the Holy Spirit?
Even more odd is that John proclaims a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). Is John saying "change your life and then your sins will be forgiven"? In which case, forgiveness is the fruit of our efforts to change rather than change being the fruit of forgiveness.
And, what do we do with Jesus' words in Luke 17:3-4:
Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” (ESV)
If repentance means trying to stop sinning, then in my mind someone who keeps coming back to say "I repent" clearly isn't genuinely repenting.
An understanding of repentance that includes stopping sinning, or trying to stop sinning, in whatever area being "repented of" is fundamentally problematic. If the Christian life can be summarised as "repentance and faith" that must mean trying hard not to sin and believing in Jesus. In short we've made faith in Jesus a top up for a lack of effort or ability in the area of repentance. But really, we've just got to try harder at this repentance thing...
Or not.
This is where going back to the greek word is helpful. The word translated repentance is the greek word metanoeo (occurring, with its cognates, only 56 times in the NT). It literally means "a change of mind." If we take that seriously, it immediately rules out behaviour. This starts to make sense of John the Baptist in Matt 3:8:
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
Repentance is not about character or behaviour. No. Character, behaviour, godly thinking; that is all the fruit of repentance. So then, what is repentance? Here is my working definition (and this is work in progress):
Repentance is a change of mind whereby I recognise who God is and who I am, and that he is right and I am not, and that I need help.
A test case for this is Matt 12:41 and Jesus' reference to the preaching of Jonah:
The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
If you read the story of Jonah, we don't know whether the people of Nineveh actually did behave differently (it is quite likely that they did - Jonah 3:10). However, the emphasis of the text is on them accepting that God is God, and accepting his verdict on them. Consequently they cry out to God (presumably for mercy) and want to turn from their evil ways.
The fascinating thing is that the only use of the greek word for "repent" in the LXX translation of Jonah 3:8-10 is used for God. He "repented" of the disaster he was going to bring on them. That is, he changed his mind.
So, perhaps, in repentance, we need to include the idea of crying out to God and a desire to change.
If all this is correct (and I need to do some more work on this), then this fits very well with Jesus' announcement in Mark 1:15: Repent and believe the good news!. Jesus is saying accept God's verdict and your need for help (repent) and believe the good news (i.e. put our trust in the gospel message).
It fits with John preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness is not coming by means of changed behaviour, but by means of recognition of help-needed. John the Baptist is preparing the way for Jesus not by the moral improvement of the nation, but by their recognition of their need for a saviour.
So, repentance is not doing a U-turn so that the direction of our life changes. Repentance is the recognition that I need a U-turn, the desire for the U-turn to happen, and the realisation that I need help in order to do it. I am stuck on the wrong lane of the motorway knowing that I am going in totally the wrong direction and I want someone to pick me up and stick me in the other lane pointing me in the other direction.
The gospel is the news that God has indeed stepped into the world to bring repentance to fruition. Now that is good news.
I had thought that repentance included within it a change of behaviour. I've repented of a sin if I have stopped doing it. As I say that, you will probably immediately see the problem with that understanding. You may get it, but it has taken me until now. If we have a biblical view of our sin, then I will only be free from my sin when I go to be with Christ or he comes back for us. Sin is all pervasive. How can I repent of my pride if repentance means not being proud anymore? I will struggle with pride until I die.
The knock on effects of understanding repentance as I did are major. For instance, in one of our Anglican confessions we say the line
We are heartily sorry, and repent of all our sins
How do I say that? I am not free of my sins. I haven't actually repented of them all.
Likewise, Jesus preaching The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" is strange (Mark 1:15). He must be saying "change your behaviour and believe." That is not a message of salvation by faith alone, but changed-life by your own effort and faith on top of that.
Similarly, John the Baptist says he baptises with water for repentance. But after me will come one... who will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt 3:11). If repentance is about changed behaviour that is likewise odd. If John's baptism is about a changed life, why the need for the Holy Spirit?
Even more odd is that John proclaims a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). Is John saying "change your life and then your sins will be forgiven"? In which case, forgiveness is the fruit of our efforts to change rather than change being the fruit of forgiveness.
And, what do we do with Jesus' words in Luke 17:3-4:
Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” (ESV)
If repentance means trying to stop sinning, then in my mind someone who keeps coming back to say "I repent" clearly isn't genuinely repenting.
An understanding of repentance that includes stopping sinning, or trying to stop sinning, in whatever area being "repented of" is fundamentally problematic. If the Christian life can be summarised as "repentance and faith" that must mean trying hard not to sin and believing in Jesus. In short we've made faith in Jesus a top up for a lack of effort or ability in the area of repentance. But really, we've just got to try harder at this repentance thing...
Or not.
This is where going back to the greek word is helpful. The word translated repentance is the greek word metanoeo (occurring, with its cognates, only 56 times in the NT). It literally means "a change of mind." If we take that seriously, it immediately rules out behaviour. This starts to make sense of John the Baptist in Matt 3:8:
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
Repentance is not about character or behaviour. No. Character, behaviour, godly thinking; that is all the fruit of repentance. So then, what is repentance? Here is my working definition (and this is work in progress):
Repentance is a change of mind whereby I recognise who God is and who I am, and that he is right and I am not, and that I need help.
A test case for this is Matt 12:41 and Jesus' reference to the preaching of Jonah:
The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
If you read the story of Jonah, we don't know whether the people of Nineveh actually did behave differently (it is quite likely that they did - Jonah 3:10). However, the emphasis of the text is on them accepting that God is God, and accepting his verdict on them. Consequently they cry out to God (presumably for mercy) and want to turn from their evil ways.
The fascinating thing is that the only use of the greek word for "repent" in the LXX translation of Jonah 3:8-10 is used for God. He "repented" of the disaster he was going to bring on them. That is, he changed his mind.
So, perhaps, in repentance, we need to include the idea of crying out to God and a desire to change.
If all this is correct (and I need to do some more work on this), then this fits very well with Jesus' announcement in Mark 1:15: Repent and believe the good news!. Jesus is saying accept God's verdict and your need for help (repent) and believe the good news (i.e. put our trust in the gospel message).
It fits with John preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness is not coming by means of changed behaviour, but by means of recognition of help-needed. John the Baptist is preparing the way for Jesus not by the moral improvement of the nation, but by their recognition of their need for a saviour.
So, repentance is not doing a U-turn so that the direction of our life changes. Repentance is the recognition that I need a U-turn, the desire for the U-turn to happen, and the realisation that I need help in order to do it. I am stuck on the wrong lane of the motorway knowing that I am going in totally the wrong direction and I want someone to pick me up and stick me in the other lane pointing me in the other direction.
The gospel is the news that God has indeed stepped into the world to bring repentance to fruition. Now that is good news.
Sunday, 29 January 2012
Perspectives on Luke 22:35-38
Jesus' words and the disciples' response in Luke 22:35-38 are confusing. Various theories have been put forward over 2000 years of history. In case you don't have a Bible to hand, here are the verses:
And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” ESV
Any view that is to be accepted needs to take into account a number of key factors:
1. The contrast between verse 35 and 36. Verse 35 is literally what happened. Luke 9 makes it very clear: Jesus sent his disciples out, giving them his authority to heal and to preach. Verse 36 is in contrast with the provision they received then.
2. The "for" at the start of verse 37. Verse 37 explains why the disciples now need to do what he says in verse 36. The reason is Jesus fulfilling (or bringing to completion) Isaiah 53:12: Jesus being numbered with the transgressors.
3. "It is enough" at the end of verse 38. Most naturally, this means "that number is sufficient." However, a very similar phrase is found in the greek version of the OT meaning "that is enough of that kind talk/behaviour."
4. The extent to which the state of verse 36 continues.
5. What happens in Luke 22:49-50 when Jesus' followers reach for their swords ready to defend their leader.
Combining these together we get various possibilities:
One takes verse 36 as literal and as lasting from Jesus' departure until Jesus returns. Thus, Christian leaders are to bear not only the word, but also the sword. Calvin rightly dismisses this view in his commentary as it does not fit with the rest of the testimony of the NT. For a start, Peter is rebuked for using his sword in vv. 49-50.
A second view takes verse 36 as metaphorical and lasting from Jesus' departure until his return. Jesus is not talking about real swords. He is being numbered with the transgressors and so they too will also. His point is then about the trouble that will face his followers. Consequently, they will need money, food and protection. The disciples, in talking about actual swords have got the wrong end of the stick. Verse 38 is therefore a rebuke. This is a very popular view. However, the problem with it is what you do with the references to swords. Jesus brings it up and makes a point of it. So we can't dismiss swords as insignificant. As a result, some say Jesus is referring to the sword of the Spirit. But the disciples would never have inferred that. Only in Ephesians 6 is the gospel message called "the sword of the Spirit." In which case, Jesus' rebuke in v. 38, for in this view, you have to read it as such, is slightly unfair.
A third view takes verse 36 as literal and symbolic for that moment only. Jesus is making a symbolic gesture. He knows Isaiah 53:12 is coming to its fulfilment. At his arrest he wants it to be seen that he is with a group of armed bandits. The weakness of this view is that it does not do sufficient justice to the contrast between verse 35 and 36.
So, a fourth view, which I preached on Sunday is that a reversal is going on that is necessary for us to understand the cross. In Luke 9 Jesus sends out his disciples on his mission of proclaiming the kingdom and healing the sick. He gives them his authority to be involved in his his mission. When joining with him they lacked nothing. Jesus wants to remind them of that in verse 35 so that they get the contrast with what is about to happen. Because now, as they get to the cross, the disciples are not joining with Jesus in his mission. He has to go this alone. Even more than that, and the point here in these verses, is that he is now being counted as a transgressor. Not only do they need to appear to be a bunch of transgressors (the third view above), but they are no longer under his protection (see verses 31-34). They are sinners on their own. And people without a saviour need money, storage and self-protection. Two swords are sufficient for this. This state of affairs continues until the Resurrection, and perhaps until Pentecost.
The point then, is that Jesus is teaching them that he is now with them in their need and insecurity as transgressors. This is more than just a symbolic act. As his arrest approaches, Jesus makes it clear that he is being arrested as the one who stands with and is numbered with transgressors. Now he is on his own, he is on his own for us all. He leaves the disciples defenseless in order to deal with their biggest problem, the problem that means Satan can demand to sift them - that is that they are transgressors.
And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” ESV
Any view that is to be accepted needs to take into account a number of key factors:
1. The contrast between verse 35 and 36. Verse 35 is literally what happened. Luke 9 makes it very clear: Jesus sent his disciples out, giving them his authority to heal and to preach. Verse 36 is in contrast with the provision they received then.
2. The "for" at the start of verse 37. Verse 37 explains why the disciples now need to do what he says in verse 36. The reason is Jesus fulfilling (or bringing to completion) Isaiah 53:12: Jesus being numbered with the transgressors.
3. "It is enough" at the end of verse 38. Most naturally, this means "that number is sufficient." However, a very similar phrase is found in the greek version of the OT meaning "that is enough of that kind talk/behaviour."
4. The extent to which the state of verse 36 continues.
5. What happens in Luke 22:49-50 when Jesus' followers reach for their swords ready to defend their leader.
Combining these together we get various possibilities:
One takes verse 36 as literal and as lasting from Jesus' departure until Jesus returns. Thus, Christian leaders are to bear not only the word, but also the sword. Calvin rightly dismisses this view in his commentary as it does not fit with the rest of the testimony of the NT. For a start, Peter is rebuked for using his sword in vv. 49-50.
A second view takes verse 36 as metaphorical and lasting from Jesus' departure until his return. Jesus is not talking about real swords. He is being numbered with the transgressors and so they too will also. His point is then about the trouble that will face his followers. Consequently, they will need money, food and protection. The disciples, in talking about actual swords have got the wrong end of the stick. Verse 38 is therefore a rebuke. This is a very popular view. However, the problem with it is what you do with the references to swords. Jesus brings it up and makes a point of it. So we can't dismiss swords as insignificant. As a result, some say Jesus is referring to the sword of the Spirit. But the disciples would never have inferred that. Only in Ephesians 6 is the gospel message called "the sword of the Spirit." In which case, Jesus' rebuke in v. 38, for in this view, you have to read it as such, is slightly unfair.
A third view takes verse 36 as literal and symbolic for that moment only. Jesus is making a symbolic gesture. He knows Isaiah 53:12 is coming to its fulfilment. At his arrest he wants it to be seen that he is with a group of armed bandits. The weakness of this view is that it does not do sufficient justice to the contrast between verse 35 and 36.
So, a fourth view, which I preached on Sunday is that a reversal is going on that is necessary for us to understand the cross. In Luke 9 Jesus sends out his disciples on his mission of proclaiming the kingdom and healing the sick. He gives them his authority to be involved in his his mission. When joining with him they lacked nothing. Jesus wants to remind them of that in verse 35 so that they get the contrast with what is about to happen. Because now, as they get to the cross, the disciples are not joining with Jesus in his mission. He has to go this alone. Even more than that, and the point here in these verses, is that he is now being counted as a transgressor. Not only do they need to appear to be a bunch of transgressors (the third view above), but they are no longer under his protection (see verses 31-34). They are sinners on their own. And people without a saviour need money, storage and self-protection. Two swords are sufficient for this. This state of affairs continues until the Resurrection, and perhaps until Pentecost.
The point then, is that Jesus is teaching them that he is now with them in their need and insecurity as transgressors. This is more than just a symbolic act. As his arrest approaches, Jesus makes it clear that he is being arrested as the one who stands with and is numbered with transgressors. Now he is on his own, he is on his own for us all. He leaves the disciples defenseless in order to deal with their biggest problem, the problem that means Satan can demand to sift them - that is that they are transgressors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)