WHAT DOES “JESUS DIED FOR US” MEAN?

Note: With Lent coming up soon, I decided to post a sermon that I gave to some lay pastors.  It covers points found in some previous devotions, but communicates them differently.

Opening:
Text: Romans 5:6-8.

First, let me offer a disclaimer about my false advertising.  I could never cover the full meaning of the statement, “Jesus died for us.”  What I want to do is address one model of understanding that statement that is popular, but, I believe is non-biblical; and then I want to point us in the right direction for understanding the language about his death.
    I have always warned ALPS students that I am a teacher and not a preacher, so this time will be no different.  But, I think it is OK, because thinking more deeply about Jesus is also worshipful and encouraging.
    I have a difficult topic tonight, but one that is important to me.  I help my wife teach a 1^st-2^nd grade SS class.  (She is the expert.)  It caught my attention that a couple of the children would say that Jesus died for their sins, when they had no clue what that meant.  I got to thinking about how many adults also probably could not give a good explanation.
    As an OT scholar, I try to look at the words of Jesus or of someone like Paul from a Jewish perspective.  I am always pursuing the issue of what the text meant to the original audiences.  But, as I finite and fallible person, my conclusions may be wrong.  So, please, bear with me, think about it, and particularly seek God about it.

Prayer: “O God, you are aware of my foolish sins; my guilt is not hidden from you.  Let none who rely on you be disgraced because of me, O sovereign LORD and king!  Let none who seek you be ashamed because of me, O God of Israel! (Ps. 69:5-6, NET)

Overview
I have been thinking about how people look at the atoning work of Jesus.  Some of the early Church Fathers drew on concepts from their culture.  Anselm in 11th century drew on his model of the feudal system to explain that Jesus was a substitute for us to restore to God the honor he deserves.  In the 16^th cent. Martin Luther viewed Jesus as a substitute who bore our punishment for failure under the Law; and, John Calvin, a lawyer, further defined the atonement in terms of criminal law; Jesus bore our criminal penalties.  These models seem to me to be straying from what a 1^st century Jewish Christian would have thought.
    I want to make two main points.  The first is that the contemporary Church, particularly on a pop-level, focuses too much on the death of Jesus to the exclusion of the broader range of the whole work and ministry of Christ.  The second is that to better understand the meaning of the statement, “Jesus died for my sins,” we need to try to understand what a good Jew like Paul would have thought. 

Focusing on Death to the Exclusion of Jesus' Full Ministry
The first point is simple.  There is too much of a focus on the death of Jesus to the exclusion of his whole work.  Obviously, we talk about the resurrection, because without it Jesus’ death would be meaningless.  I am not minimizing that.  I am expanding.  There is more.  Scripture tells us that through Jesus, the Word of God, all things were created.  But, there is more.  Jesus emptied himself of his divine status, humbled himself, became incarnate and dwelt among us – the Light of the World in our midst.  But, there is more.  Jesus pronounced and taught about the newly inaugurated era of the Kingdom of God, in which you and I now participate.  God’s rule had begun in a new way.  And, Jesus performed signs and wonders that demonstrated that God’s Kingdom was indeed here in his person.  But, there is more.  He showed himself to be the perfect Adam, the perfect Israel, the perfect offering a new covenant, the perfect sin offering, and the perfect High Priest.  But, there is more.  His death was followed by the first fruits of the Resurrection, which proved his words, and which demonstrated his victory over death, sin, and Satan.  But, there is more.  Jesus dwells in believers through the Person of the Holy Spirit, and we dwell in Him as members of His Body.  But, there is more.  Jesus, in his humanity, having been tested and tempted in all ways, identifies with us in our weaknesses and at this very moment and intercedes for you and me before the throne of God.  His goal is that you and I might be made perfect in him and so be prepared for his Second Coming.
    A whole year’s worth of sermons could be preached on each of these points and this is a partial list.  So, I’m sure you get the point: the whole work and ministry of Jesus must be proclaimed to your congregations.

Better Understanding of “Jesus Died for My Sins”
The second point is to address the statement, “Jesus died for my sins.”  Again, we need to look view this wholistically.  Through the combined work of Jesus incarnation, his life and ministry, his death and resurrection, etc. Jesus receives a wide variety of titles that use the figurative language of the OT to capture who he is.  Jesus is savior, redeemer, one who pays a ransom, one who pronounces forgiveness, the seat of atonement, a sin offering, Passover lamb, perfect sacrifice, high priest, the new Man, the victor over death, victor over this world, victor over Satan and the principalities, etc.
    One issue that I repeatedly find in NT studies is that people tend to group most of those titles under the category of “atonement,” but atonement is used in a narrower sense in the OT.  The second issue is after having called most of that “atonement” some people try to settle on the mechanism of atonement in a very narrow way, and one that I do not find to be biblical. 

Penal Substitution
I want to address this model: Jesus is the penal substitute for my sins.  As I mentioned, this model, which has some antecedents that go back to Anselm, was mainly promoted by some leaders in the Reformation.  They held a legal notion of atonement that is foreign to the Temple language of atonement.  For them, God is a Judge, for whom every infraction against his holiness demands a legal penalty, which, because God is so holy, is the legal penalty of death.  In this view, our sins demanded our deaths; they were transferred over to the Son of God; and then God executed justice on Jesus by killing him.  As a result, this model holds, we can have a right relationship with God.  I understand that this model is supposed to show the grace of God: God is both the executioner and the victim.  However, as a scholar who reads the NT through the lens of the OT, my point that is that the NT writers, and particularly Paul, would not have thought about atonement in terms of penal substitution.

Covenant Language Vs. Atonement Language
The first point is that in the OT there is a difference between the language of God offering a covenant relationship and God providing a means of atonement for sin.  We must not overlook the language of covenant.  We need to separate the two.  When God offers a relationship to Abraham, God does not first cleanse him of sin.  There is no judicial punishment for his sinfulness.  God meets Abraham on his level and offers relationship.  It is all about grace.  God “cuts a covenant” with him.  In Gen. 15, the sacrificial animals are cut in half and placed opposite each other; and God, represented by a smoking fire-pot, passing through the bloody pieces to seal his covenant with Abraham.  Jesus, in the Eucharist refers to his blood as the blood of a new covenant.  This is not atonement language.  Then to keep his promises to Abraham, God later saves/rescues/ransoms/delivers Abraham’s descendants from slavery in Egypt.  This is not atonement language.  Then, later God offers a covenant relationship to the rescued Hebrew slaves without any punishment of sin, or sacrifices, or cleansing.  God lowers himself to their level to offer a relationship with him without precondition.  It is all about grace.
    This is important: What then made Abraham righteous in God’s sight?  It was not some substitutionary sacrifice.  We are told clearly in Gen. 15:6 that when Abraham believed God – or better, entrusted himself to God, God counted that as righteousness.  This becomes a key point in Paul’s argument about how the Gentiles, the nations, are included.  In Romans 3 and Galatians 3, Paul argues that those who are of the faith of Abraham, who entrust themselves to the God who raised Jesus from the dead, are children of Abraham, recipients of the promises.  The main point to remember is that God’s offer of relationship is purely by grace and not based on first punishing sins or cleansing someone.

Atonement Language
The second point is that atonement language follows covenant language.  Atonement language deals with our failure to be faithful to our relationship with God.  It is about restoring our covenant relationship with God when it is damage by our sin.  The atonement language of the Temple system was symbolic.  Sin is real, but it is not tangible.  Sin breaks our rapport with God, but again, it is not material.  The symbol system of the Temple was heuristic, educational; it graphically demonstrated the reality of sin.  The Temple represented God dwelling in the midst of his people, but God did not literally dwell there.  Sin symbolically polluted God’s dwelling place and threatened their relationship with God.  So, that pollution, or rot, symbolically had to be cleansed, and that was done through blood because it is the strongest tangible symbol of life.  Blood cleanses pollution.  The person providing the animal did so as a gesture of wanting to be forgiven and restored.  However, the killing of the animal is not the main part.  The main part was that first the sinner through public confession repented, having a heart-felt desire for a restored relationship with God.  Such repentance was greeted with God’s forgiveness, an act of grace.  Still, the Temple had to be cleansed from the pollution of sin to symbolize restored access by the individual or community to the Presence of God.  That is where the blood of the sacrifice comes in.  The animal was not a substitute being punished by death for the sinner.  Rather the pure, lifeblood of an unblemished animal provided the “cleansing agent” that was manipulated on the altar to cleanse away the pollution symbolically.  The whole process of forgiveness and a ritual offering communicated publicly and symbolically God’s mercy and grace.
    Let me give an example of another important ritual, that of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, a ritual which is mistakenly taken as a ritual of penal substitution.  Apparently, the Israelites borrowed this ritual from someone like the Hittites and changed it.  The Hittites believed that a person could magically transfer the sins of a person onto a goat, drive that goat into the desert, and fool the offended god or goddess who went chasing after that goat.  But, the Israelites did not believe that.  They did not believe that sins were somehow material and could be transferred by magic onto another person.  God is against such notions of magic.  God cannot not be fooled like demonic “gods.”  The Israelites adopted this ritual symbolically but adapted it to communicate the grace of God.  Again, repentance expressed by fasting and communal confession of sin was main part of the Day of Atonement.  Driving the scapegoat into the wilderness symbolized the removal of those sins to the realm where they belong, a place of chaos and death.  And, application of blood to the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (the mercy seat) symbolized the cleansing of the impediment of pollution between God and the people.
    In this sermon/teaching, I cannot go into all of the NT passages that speak about the death of Jesus and show how they are based on OT language and concepts, but I want to emphasize the symbolic nature of the language.  I am not minimizing sin.  Sin is real.  Sin has consequences.  But, God does not literally forget sins.  God does not literally move our sins as far as the east is from the west.  God does not literally cast our sins into the sea.  God does not literally cover over our sins.  God does not literally blot our sins out of the ledger.  God does not literally wash away sins.  God is not fooled by a goat carrying sins away into the wilderness.  This language was meant to help people realize the reality and seriousness of sin, and, most of all, to illustrate the unfathomable grace of God.
    In Isaiah 43, God is mad at Israel for not understanding this, and God say, “I, I myself, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake; your sins I do not remember.” (Isa. 43:25 Duke).  God forgives for God’s sake; God’s character is merciful and graceful.
    But, again, sin is seriously burdensome.  The main term in the OT that gets translated by the verb “forgive” is nasa.  It means to lift, to bear.  Our sins weigh us down and God lifts them; God bears them.  When Peter states in 1 Pet. 2:24 that Jesus bore our sins on the cross, he is not thinking some kind of magical manipulation of sins for penal substitution.  He is using good OT language.  [This also takes us into language that is borrowed from the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah.  That is another concept.  Israel could see how the generation of those who suffered the Babylonian Exile bore the sins and punishment of many generations.  Paul picks up on that language as well in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 and Rom. 5.  But, I can cover the main concept but not every text.
    I want to come back to some atonement language in the NT and point out how rich the language is that Paul borrows from the Temple system.  For instance, in Rom. 3: 25, Paul calls Jesus the hilastarion.  Some translators have “expiation” or “propitiation,” but I am convinced that Paul knew the Jewish sacrificial system.  He is thinking of the Day of Atonement.  The hilastarion in the Greek version of the OT was the lid of the ark of the covenant, call the mercy seat.  It was the closest point symbolically connecting God to God’s people.  It was where the lifeblood of the sin offering was applied on the Day of Atonement to rid the pollution of the Israelites’ deliberate sin.  Paul is calling that hilastarion (mercy seat) Jesus.  However, later in Rom 8:3, Paul shifts his metaphorical language and refers to Jesus as the sin offering (hamartia) itself that provided the cleansing blood that was put on the mercy seat on the Day of Atonement.  [Depending on the context, hamartia can be translated generically as “sin” in many places, but in sacrificial contexts it was also the technical term for the “sin offering,” which is clearly what Paul means here.]  To blend language from John and Paul: Jesus, who is the Life, both provides the perfect, pure, cleansing lifeblood of the sin offering and is the point of mediation between God and humanity, the mercy seat.  That is wonderful language of grace. 

Summary
Let me summarize the main points.  The first simple point is that we need to preach the fullness of the work and ministry of Jesus, the fullness of his identity and roles.  Second, when we distinguish between the language of covenant relationship and that of atonement, we see the biblical model that God offers relationship with himself as pure grace.  He does not cleanse the person first.  There is no judicial punishment.  God, in humility condescends to offer himself in communion with us.  When people entrust themselves to God in that relationship, that is considered “righteousness.”  Third, when we do talk about the NT atonement language borrowed from the OT, we must be careful and ask what it meant to a Jew of that time.  When many people outside of the Church hear a pop-cultural, Christian model that everyone’s sins have been transferred to Jesus, who was then executed to exact the price of justice, they do not hear the Good News.  They do not hear a God full of grace.  The bottom line of what I am saying is that the language of the NT that draws on the sacrificial system in the OT was meant to communicate God’s grace and mercy in Jesus.  It is grace from the beginning to the end.

“I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE” (JOHN 11:25-26): TWO CLAIMS

I recently realized when Jesus said that he is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25a) that he was making two, albeit related, claims.  My lack of apprehension was because I had taken for granted translations that have Jesus saying in the next verse (26a), “The one who lives and believes in me will never die” (NET, see how NRSV and NIV also say “never”).  I had wondered what sense that made, since all people die, unless Jesus was referring to those alive at the Second Coming.  However, that concept is not part of the immediate context.  I had never looked at the text closely. 

Context and Explanation
This text is found in John 11:25-26. Just before Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, Martha affirms her belief that Lazarus would come back to life again at the last day.  That is to say she believed in a Jewish concept of a resurrection of the dead at the time of final judgement.  However, her belief was not specifically grounded on Jesus.  Jesus here directs her to trust in him.  Jesus tells her he is (both) the resurrection and the life.  This not a hendiadys, a single concept expressed by two nouns.  Jesus is making two claims, which he then clarifies.  His first statement is,

“The one who is believing into me (= entrusting oneself to) even if he dies will live” (25b).  

That is to say that Jesus is the source of all those who will be resurrected at the last day.  Jesus is one responsible for resurrection of the dead.  That specific claim is then supported by the following sign of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (11:41-44).  However, Jesus goes on to say,

“And everyone who is living and believing into me will not die into the ages (eis ton aiona)” (26a).

This is where English translations often simply say, “will never die.”  Although this translation is not exactly wrong, it misses the point of the language.  “Into the ages,” particularly following a claim of resurrection, has an eschatological meaning.  Jesus is making a second claim about himself.  The gift of continuing to live forever (“into the ages”) also rests with/in Jesus.  Therefore, having said he is the resurrection AND the life, Jesus in verses 25-26, invites Martha to realize that he is both the source of resurrection of the dead and the source of eternal life.

Another implication is significant.  One might logically assume that being granted life into the ages is subsequent to being resurrected from the dead.  However, since Jesus in both statements uses the present participle (ongoing action) when referring to the “one believing in me” (25b) and “all who are believing in me” (26a), we should understand that the eschatological nature of eternal life begins with the commitment of entrusting oneself to Jesus; that is, it begins in the present.  This same point about “into the ages” and the beginning of eternal life helps to clarify John 8:51. There Jesus says, “whoever keeps my word, will not behold death into the ages.”  The commitment to Jesus’ word in the present results in a life that lasts into the ages (forever).  Whether or not Jesus immediate audience understood it, Jesus was making the eschatological claim of eternal life beginning in the present.

The counterpart, the end result of those not entrusting themselves to Jesus, is implied both here and at 8:51 (see, too, John 6:50-51 and 10:25-30.  That is, they apparently do die “into the ages.”  They suffer an eschatological death - forever.  (See the preceding post about the final judgment being eternal death, the “second death” of Revelation, November 14, 2025.) 

Application
Obviously, Jesus’ invitation to Martha applies to me.  I am to realize that Jesus is both the source of resurrection of the dead and the source of eternal life.  For me, Jesus’ claims here are deeper and more profound than I have realized.  I will not again speak of Jesus being the resurrection and the life as glibly as I have before.  All power over death and the grave belongs to Jesus.  The gift of eternal life belongs to Jesus.  All I can do is worship.

ADVENT: INCARNATION: A PARALLEL ACT TO CREATION, John 1:4-5

John’s prologue to his gospel of Jesus (1:1-5) is set within the theological context of Genesis 1, “In the beginning” (1:1).  That context is important for understanding John.  (See “Advent: And the Word Was God?” 11/30/25.)  John’s narrative proper begins at v. 6 with the introduction of John the Baptist with his announcement of the Incarnation at v 14, when God’s Utterance (the Logos/Word) became flesh.  I have been thinking about 1:4-5 in this prologue:

“In Him [referring back to the Utterance] was Life and the Life was the Light of all people.  And the Light in the darkness shines, and the darkness did not overcome it.”

It strikes me that with the Utterance becoming flesh a parallel act of creation to that of Genesis 1 has taken place.

Proper context
To explain, I have to set to one side a popular doctrine, that of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).  It was important to the early Church Fathers to espouse creation ex nihilo in order to counter a couple of popular notions of their day, that the cosmos was eternal and that there had always been opposing forces of good and bad or spirit and matter.  They needed to teach, rightly, about God as the Creator who was sovereign.  However, that teaching is not found in the narrative of Genesis 1 and should not be read into it.
    Genesis 1 begins with the same starting point as the earlier ancient Near Eastern creation accounts of the Israelites’ culture, accounts which the biblical writers adopted and then adapted to speak the truth about God and reality.  Those accounts start with the reality that all humans face, chaos that constantly seeks to overpower life.  Illustration: before one can farm land, one must bring order into the physical chaos of the land; and, once one has planted a crop, one constantly has to fight the forces of chaos that would consume the garden.  Survival is a struggle against physical forces of chaos as a well moral chaos.  
    Genesis 1 begins with three elements that are contra life: a topsy-turvy “earth,” that is encased in a watery deep and surrounded in utter darkness (Gen 1:2).  However, God speaks, and the Spirit that breaths out the Utterance of God, speaks light into darkness, order into the chaotic watery deep and topsy-turvy earth, and brings forth life. This is what John is thinking about. 

Application
John is thinking about Jesus as the God’s Utterance by which all things came into being (1:3).  But as John is thinking about how the Utterance (logos) became flesh (1:14), he is recognizing in verse 4-5 how that Utterance will/does function as the Life who is the Light of all people (see, too v. 9).  In other words, it seems to me that John is thinking of the Incarnation as a parallel creational act of God.
    The reality of life as we face it is full of chaos and darkness, physical and moral, just as the “world” was before God began to speak light, order, and life into that chaos in Genesis 1.  In this new beginning work of God, the Incarnation, the Utterance of God became flesh and dwelt with us bringing light, order, and life into our existence which constantly struggles with that which is contra life.  Jesus is this Light, and the forces of chaos, darkness, and death cannot overcome the Light.  Rather, the Light exposes all that is of darkness and done in darkness so that people do not have to walk in darkness (e.g. 8:12).  The Light offers eternal life to those who receive Jesus and entrust themselves (“believe into”) Jesus (1:12).  The Utterance become flesh parallels the work of God in Genesis 1.

Lord, before surrendering to Jesus, I walked in darkness.  Darkness, chaos, and sin still envelop my world, yet by the Light you guide me.  Darkness cannot overcome your Light.  Help me to always desire to stay in the Light.  Amen.

 

 

 

ADVENT: AND THE WORD WAS GOD? (John 1:1-2)

What was John saying in 1:1-2 about the Word (logos)?  I, like others, do not think I can capture the Greek concepts in English.  I will try, but what I notice is that many commentators get hung up on the individual word issues and miss the broader cultural understanding of speaking that lies behind John’s imagery.

Issues
“In beginning”: indicating temporality or causality is not as important as the fact that John is thinking of Genesis 1:1.
“Word” (logos): can mean word, speech act, reason or plan, etc.  The context of a speech act that alludes to Genesis 1 matters.
“With God”: the preposition pros can have a wide range of nuances; appropriate to the context here is a nuance of extension and an expression of relationship.
“Was God”: 1) Jehovah Witnesses want to translate it as “was a God” because there is no definite article; however, 2) the predicate noun stated first can be definite without the definite article; but more significantly 3) it could be qualitative, as in “fully divine.” [See Net Bible for a discussion.]  Again, the context matters.

Cultural Concept
Understanding the cultural concept of the speech act is more important than debating the words individually.  In that culture, when someone spoke, that person did so by their very life essence, their spirit or breath (Hebrew: ruach; Greek: pneuma).  As a result, the utterance was something real and “tangibly” of the speaker.  One can even feel words breathe out of the person’s mouth.  This is why words of blessing and words of cursing were taken as real and powerful as the speaker.  

In Genesis 1, of which John is thinking, God utters forth creation: “God said … and it came to be.”  God’s utterance divides light from darkness.  God’s utterance divides order from chaos.  God’s utterance brings about life.  God’s utterance in creation was understood to be continually efficacious, maintaining the creational order in the presence of chaos. God’s utterance was of the very life essence (Spirit) of God.

Application
John’s parallel to Genesis 1 is identifying Jesus as that creational ordering, efficacious utterance of God that is itself (Himself) inseparably of the essence and person of God.*  Through this Utterance, “All things through Him came into being; and apart from Him nothing has come into being” (1:3).  Here is a paraphrase, inadequate but maybe helpful, of 1:1-2:
    In the beginning, was God’s Ordering, Life-giving Utterance [the Word].
    And the Ordering Utterance was the extension of God.
    And fully expressing the Divine was the Ordering Utterance.
    This One was from the beginning the extension of God.
As I think about Jesus, I am overwhelmed by the realization that the Divine Utterance became flesh, became a person.  This is the Christ.  This is the Savior of the world.  The world came into being through Him.  I came into being through Him.  I am moved to worship.
Lord, Jesus, I am yours.  Amen.
-------
*Although I am not saying that John was attempting to give a theological metaphor for the Trinity, if I was to put words in John’s mouth, I would use the image of God the Utterer (Father), God the articulating Breath (Spirit), and God the Utterance (Son) – all of the same Godhead, all distinct, all in unity.

I GRIEVE BECAUSE OF CHRISTIANS.

I grieve that people are not walking with Jesus because of Christians.  I am speaking about something much deeper than political division.  I have friends who are atheists or agnostics due to their experience with Christians.  Today, again, I met another fine man who is an agnostic.  He would like to believe in a God, but because Christians have taught him that all non-Christians will “go to hell,” he does not want anything to do with Jesus.  That is what grieves me deeply.  That is not good biblical theology.  Very briefly and without full explanations, this is what I would like to tell such people, if they were open to listening:

1.   The basic biblical message is that God wants to be in a close, eternal relationship with those whom God created.  God humbles God-self to effect such relationships.

2.   Read literally the key biblical texts, such as John 3:16: and Rom 6:23, tell us that there two spiritual options: people either can accept eternal life with God or they will die, not that they will either live eternally with God or live eternally tormented.

a.   The popular teaching that everyone has an eternal soul and can never die comes from ancient Greek thought. It is not biblical. It is read into the Bible.

b.   In Gen 3, when Adam and Eve seek to become like God, they do die; they are banned from eating from the Tree of Life.  The clear implication is that they were created mortal but had the opportunity of living forever removed because of their sin.

c.   The popular-level doctrine of “hell” comes from conflating two different concepts: Gehenna, the depository place of dead bodies, and Hades, the holding place until the resurrection of the dead. (The conflation can be seen in 9^th century Anglo-Saxon translations that render both terms by “hel/helle” [underworld].)  Revelation calls the final judgement of death, after the resurrection of the dead, the “second death” (20:6,14; 21:8).  In the 1^st century AD, mortals (vs. angels) being thrown into a lake fire symbolized the complete destruction of the person.

3.   God does not limit the option of life to the “informed” (e.g. Jews or Christians).  Paul recognizes in Romans 2 that non-Jews who did not have the law and were not circumcised (a sign of being a member of the covenant community) could have the law “in their hearts” and be spiritually “circumcise” (i.e. belong to the community of faith; see 2:11-16, 26-29).  God welcomes people from every nation who totally respect God (Luke 1:50; Acts 10:34-35).

4.   The main Christ redemption event was to reveal fully the heart of God who is willing lower God-self and then to “lift up” and remove sin, that is to bring people into a state of forgiveness and reconciliation.

5.   The salvific language in the Gospels is that people now can participate in the Kingdom of God (eternal life); they can now become participants in Christ, in God; and that God participates now in them through the presence of the Holy Spirit.

When we do not communicate the biblical message of God’s love accurately or well, we hinder people from walking closely with Jesus.  It is not their fault.  It is ours, Christians.

Note: I understand that my points above do not conform to popular, Christian “orthodoxy.”  My efforts as a biblical scholar – recognizing that I am frail and fallible – are to understand to the best of my ability what the biblical terms and concepts meant to the original Jewish and Christian audiences in their time and culture.  Here is an example, although it is centuries later than the New Testament.  Probably millions of people in the US every Sunday recite from one of the ancient Christian creeds something to the effect of how they “believe in the resurrection of the dead.”  I wonder how many of them realize that they are affirming the belief that at the Second Coming of Jesus the dead will then be resurrected?  How many understand the biblical teaching of the resurrection of the dead?  Much like Jesus’ teaching on participating in the Kingdom of God now, it is generally a lost concept.

 

A PRAYER FOR THOUGHTS AND DREAMS

I have friends struggling with bad dreams.  For one person, they go back to his time of service in Vietnam.  My friends have memories that have been triggered by recent personal events.  I wonder how to pray for my friends.  As in their cases, one’s “mind” may be outside of willful control due to the non-conscious release of chemicals that trigger neurological responses.  One’s “mind” is deeply embedded.  It is not just a matter of brain neurology.  Mind is enacted through bodily experiences as well as one’s environmental embeddedness, and, consequently, thoughts and dreams may be triggered by various factors.

I have published earlier posts on basic Christianity, the nature of temptation,and the active mental discipline of rejecting evil thoughts that come to mind (7/10/24, 2/6/25, and 2/17/25).  One’s mindset can be on the things of the sinful nature or on the desires of the Spirit (Rom 8:5-6).  But my friends’ situations are different.  They are not allowing temptations to dwell in their thought lives.

I am reminded though, that the Spirit who searches all things and knows the deep things of God (1Cor 2:10b-11), must fully know the depths of their minds.  And, if the Spirit can bring to the disciples’ minds what Jesus taught them (John 14:26), then I imagine that the Spirit can bring fresh and healing thoughts to my friends’ minds even as they sleep.  That is my prayer.

Come Holy Spirit.  I pray that You, who know the thoughts and memories that come to our minds, will nurture those of my friends even as they sleep.  Provide thoughts that are healing, care for the thoughts that need comforting, and turn back any that would cast shadows in their hearts.  Amen.

THE “TOO MUCH” JESUS

At the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry in Luke (4:14-30), Jesus confronts us – me anyway – with too much.  (Detailed discussion follows.  One might want to skip to the application.)

Problem
In the typical summary of this text, Jesus, having been well received in other synagogues, comes to his home town of Nazareth and reads the prophetic text of that sabbath (14-21), people complement him (22), he rebukes them over a prophet not being accepted in his home town and gentiles being blessed instead (23-27), and the people then try unsuccessfully to kill him (28-30).  So, why did Jesus tell them off?

Exegetical Comments
The key to me is that a rather ambiguous text of verse 22 is usually translated with a positive spin when the context calls for a negative interpretation.
Neutral translation:

And all were bearing witness about him and wondering at the-coming-out-of-his-mouth words of grace, and saying, “Is not this the son of Joseph?”

Sample positive translation:

All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth.  They said, "Is not this Joseph's son?" (NRSV) 

There must be a reason that prompted Jesus to tell them off right after this report of verse 22.  He had just a read a messianic, end-time prophetic word to them from Isaiah 61:1-2a:

The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor ( NRSV).

Then, when all eyes were fixed on him, he said these incredible words, “Today, this scripture has been fulfilled in your ears.”  Their response is in verse 22.  So, let’s look at the text in context more closely.

1)     “Bearing witness about X” does not necessarily mean a positive witness. 

2)     “Wondering/marveling'” can be in a good or bad sense.

3)     “Words of grace” may be an adjectival genitive (“gracious words,” so with NRSV, NIV, NET), but objective genitive also makes sense to me here (“words about/concerning grace/favor” as in Acts 20:32).

a.      Since Jesus has just read a messianic, forward-looking text from Isaiah, and with prophetic-like authority then pronounced those words as fulfilled “today” and in their presence (“their ears”) – that is, indicating himself – I think the phrase points to those words and his self-application and not to some gracious manner of speaking.

4)     In Luke, Jesus’ opponents sometimes ask rhetorical questions to make a point; and, the question with ouxi (“not”) expects an affirmative response that Jesus is indeed the son of Joseph.

5)     It is well recognized that in Luke and Acts that the word “today” points to something new happening in divine activity (see NET translators note at Lk 2:11).

6)     Again, most importantly, Jesus has just made an outrageous self-claim of a prophetic promise being fulfilled in their midst; that is, the “words about God’s grace/favor” of Isaiah about a new divine activity in the future applied to himself!

Putting it all together, the sense of the text (v 22) is:

And they all bore witness concerning him and they demurred about the words of [self] favor that came out of his [own] mouth.  And they said, "Isn't this [just] Joseph's son?"

Application:
Jesus’ self-claim was too much for them.  His home town folk of Nazareth were rejecting him and his claim rather sarcastically in verse 22.  I have been thinking about how Jesus’ is too much: the one anointed by God’s Spirit, pronouncing forgiveness of sin as if he were God, calming a storm, claiming to be life and light, saying that we must abide in him, etc.  It is too much.  To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, Jesus was either an egomaniacal lunatic, or Jesus was an authoritarian con-man, or – well, it’s too much.  If it is true, my worldview must change.  I must give myself over to his claims.  I must submit to them, to him.

Jesus, I accept your claims.  Please open my eyes and heart to fully accept your claims and respond obediently to them just as fully.  Amen.