“So, perhaps the best conclusion is that John was not looking for encouragement, but giving encouragement. In effect, he was saying, ‘Get on with it, cousin!’”

The nature of the texts of the Bible is just like the spoken words God gave to Adam. A great deal remained unsaid, and Adam was to “read between the lines” based upon God’s revealed character as his Father. However, Adam let somebody else fill in the gaps with some conflicting information about God’s character, somebody who was very likely jealous of Adam’s commission and had an ax to grind (and even here, we are left to fill in the gaps as to Satan’s motive based upon later scriptures!)

The record of John the Baptist’s question to Jesus similarly doesn’t give us all the information. All the texts are written to make us think very hard and very deeply, and to call to mind things we have read in previous texts. Some Christian writers fill in the gaps concerning the reason for John’s question with a view to helping Christians who experience doubt (here’s an example). There are certainly other texts that speak of doubt which could indicate that this was what John was experiencing.

And Jesus said to him, “ ‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:23-24)

But is this what is really going on here? Or is this interpretation one that shows both our ignorance of the Old Testament and of the Bible’s fundamental “Covenant” structure? What if the question asked by John had nothing to do with doubt, but simply his expectations of Jesus based on the roles in the Triune Office? (See The Triune Office.)

Unlike Adam, John would have had no doubts about Jesus’ Divine character. James Jordan observes that John would have seen his cousin at least three times every year at the regular feasts, which John would still have been required to attend even after he moved into the wilderness as an adult to begin his ministry.

John knew that Jesus was the Great Priest because he referred to Him as the lamb of God, who had come to take away the sins of the world. John also knew that Jesus was the Great King because he had then seen Him anointed directly by the Father (in the Old Testament, the prophets who anointed kings were often referred to as “father.” Likewise, Joseph is referred to by Pharaoh as “father.” See Peter Leithart’s book on 1 and 2 Samuel, A Son To Me.) James Jordan suggests that John’s question was about Jesus being the Great Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15), the one about whom the priests and Levites had questioned John himself (John 1:21). Priests do not do miracles. Neither do kings. Only prophets do miracles, and John was simply wondering if the Triune Office would be fulfilled in a single Adam. Was Jesus doing the kinds of things that prophets like Elijah and Elisha did, things that John himself, as “Elijah,” never did?

And when the men had come to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you, saying, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?’ ” In that hour he healed many people of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many who were blind he bestowed sight. And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.” (Luke 7:20-23)

This also makes sense of the final sentence concerning “offense.” Historically, the prophets were killed because the Covenant-legal message they brought was offensive to the Covenant breakers.

So, perhaps the best conclusion is that John was not looking for encouragement, but giving encouragement. In effect, he was saying, “Get on with it!”

Moving from deduction by logic to literary structure, do we see this conclusion supported in the shape of Luke’s text? I believe we do. (Thanks to Albert Garlando for his initial work on the structure of this passage.)

Covenant structure of Luke 7 – 8

by Albert Garlando

Charles Stone introduces his book, ‘Five Ministry Killers and How to Kill Them‘ with an account of how a Church fired their Pastor. As I started the first paragraph, I thought it was a fictional parable used to kick off the main topic of the book. Wrong!

I read a little further and started to feel a little uncomfortable with the issues being mentioned. Then comes the surprise (for me anyway). The pastor in question is a real person and he is talking about real struggles that defeat many men and women who are in Christian Ministry.

The pastor in question, faced difficulties with power struggles, salary controversies, questions about his leadership style. His visitation policy was considered questionable and he was accused of “not loving the people.” Why? Because he made a decision to concentrate on the strengths and gifts of his ministry and prioritize his time on preaching and teaching instead of following a routine visiting program.

After some time, one particular man lead a factional revolt that would eventually see the pastor fired from his job. The pastor, unhindered by this, then made a decision to introduce changes in the Church policy regarding the expectations of the character of those that wanted to become Church members. He was called to question for this stance and the other matters. He was threatened with losing his job. He stood his ground and they fired him.

Stone closes off this account of the pastor, called “Jonathan”, as follows:

Ten years later, because Jonathan had so graciously responded to his critics and his dismissal, one of his main detractors admitted that pride, self-sufficiency, ambition, and vanity had caused the contention. The pastor’s handling of his ministry crisis left such and impression that eventually the church publicly repented of their actions, exactly 150 years after they sent him packing.

Who was Jonathan? Jonathan Edwards, arguably America’s greatest theologian.

Dear Pastor friend, if it happened to Edwards, chances are you will face similar challenges. Are you ready to meet them with a godly, gospel oriented approach?

Dear Church Member friend, if you have a Pastor that has different ideas about leadership style and ministry emphasis are you able to model gospel-oriented flexibility and serve alongside him for God’s glory?

“So I commended
…..enjoyment,
……….because a man
……….has nothing better
……………under the sun
…..…..than to eat,
…..drink,
and be merry…”
(Eccles. 8:15)

If you love the chiasmi of the Bible, why not arrange a “Covenant” Christmas banquet using the Bible Matrix?*

“…whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do,
do all to the glory of God.” (1 Cor 10:13)

*Based on a structure by Albert Garlando. See also Kindle Your Nostrils for how to smoke a pipe according to the matrix.
**This is the 24 angels carrying out their final Old Covenant tasks in the Revelation and leaving the Holy Place vacated for the saints. The Old Covenant servants leave the house to the New Covenant sons.

My friend Pastor Albert Garlando has internalized the matrix. He spotted one without even looking for it.

“Found a dominion/chiasm pattern all by myself… Best part was, wasn’t actually looking for one until I started to think about my [sermon] outline.”

I’ve modified the central points slightly, but here’s the one he found in Galatians 5:16-26:

A. Creation – v.16
(command to be Light)

…..B. Division – v.17
…..(firstborn, flesh vs. Spirit)

……….C. Ascension – v.18
……….(the Spirit replaces the Law of Moses)

……………D. Testing – vv. 19-21
……………(harlotry in wilderness: works of the flesh)

……….C’. Maturity – vv.22-23
……….(fruits of the Spirit – the Law of Christ)

…..B’. Conquest – v.24
…..(the flesh crucified – Atonement)

A’. Glorification – v.25
(Shekinah-people)

Albert observes:

“I got all school-kid excited like you know, huh, when you lay it out like this you can see how the crucifixion/atonement is the solution to the war between Spirit and the flesh. Plus the pivot point being a Covenant issue of whether you are in or out of the kingdom determines whether you go on to maturity/fruitful-faithfulness etc. It’s a great tool!”

A blog post from my friend Albert Garlando, republished here with his permission.

Marriage, Divorce and the Gospel

Jesus is interrogated by the religious ‘mob’ concerning his views on divorce (Mark 10:1-12). The mob are trying to get him to make a call on the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) provision for divorce and remarriage. The 1st Century rabbis did not agree in their own interpretations of this, so they pestered Jesus about it.

Their big question was: “What makes divorce OK?”

True to form, Jesus’ response is, “You have missed the point and are asking the wrong question.”

The better question to be asking is “How can we prevent divorce?” or perhaps, “How should we understand (and enjoy!) God’s idea of marriage?”

In reading the Bible, you’ll soon see that divorce is never required or encouraged – it is only ever regulated. The OT passage provided a regulatory protection for the woman to make sure that she was not unfairly discriminated against or ostracised.

The passage in Deuteronomy suggests that there was at that time (circa 1400 B.C.E.) a practice in the Middle East that involved the exchange and trade of women in the guise of marriage, divorce and remarriage – this is what Moses is discouraging. (see Laney for more detail).

Any plans that a man might have concocted to profit by divorcing his wife, then having her marry another, get an inheritance or gift from him and then return to the first husband were outlawed by this clause in Moses’ teaching. This use of women as a type of trading chattel was an abominable practice that God’s people ought to have separated themselves from, thus the command in Deuteronomy.

In both that instance, and the instance where Jesus is being challenged, they had lost sight of the original design and purpose of marriage: God created it, and it shows us his unity.

At the time there were two main view points. The disciples of the rabbi Shammai held to a strict interpretation (divorce only for unfaithfulness) while the disciples of Hillel held to a lenient interpretation (divorce for almost any reason).

Instead of taking sides with either Shammai or Hillel, Jesus went back to Moses and the first marriage (Gen.1:27; 2:21–25). From the beginning, marriage meant one man and one woman becoming one flesh for one lifetime. Moses’ commandment in Deut. 24:1–4 was a concession to the Jews because of their hardness of heart. It does not represent God’s ideal for marriage.

The added subtly of the encounter goes beyond an interpretive debate though. The Pharisees are setting Jesus up against Herod (the Roman ruler – and the one who had John the Baptist murdered.) Herod had married his brother’s former wife. This is a high profile case of divorce and remarriage. If they can get Jesus to come out against Herod it will give them a chance to charge him with a capital offense and have him killed.

Instead, Jesus brings them back to the final authority and sufficiency of scripture – This is God’s intention for marriage: i.e. it’s a picture of the unity of God and his love for us and desire to be reconciled.

Ephesians 5:31-32 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

In the gospel, we are re-joined with God as our Father through Jesus. When Adam and Eve sinned they separated themselves from God and we have followed in their footsteps. The gospel brings us back together with God. The gospel is all about reconciliation and forgiveness. In any marriage there is going to be many opportunities for you to receive and to experience both. Acknowledging you both are in need of the gospel is going to go a long way towards understanding (and enjoying!) God’s best for your marriage.