New Testament

On Tuesday, I posted some thoughts on why John records the miraculous catch of fish in John 21.

This Sunday I'm preaching on John 21:1-14, the miraculous catch of fish. I've been asking myself why this miracle is recorded in John's gospel. Here are some thoughts.

What's the Puzzle?

Here's why the question needs asking. The story is a miracle (the catch of fish), and a post-resurrection appearance (“Afterwards Jesus appeared again to his disciples. … This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead”).

As we look at the visit of the Magi in Matthew 2, the obvious lead human characters in the story are Herod, the Magi, and Jesus himself. These are the lead protagonists and antagonists.

Whilst the Jewish priests are more flat, functionary characters, we mustn't miss the contrast Matthew deliberately paints between them and the Magi.

Last week, I wrote a post quoting Calvin's interpretation of Peter walking on the water in Matthew 14:22-33. I was looking again at this passage, as the lectionary brought it round again, having last preached on it in 2018.

I most recently preached on Matthew 14:24-33 (the story of Jesus walking on the water) in January 2018.

Here's Darrell Bock (paid link), commenting on the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:6.

There's a little gem of a commentary (paid link) on Luke's gospel, by G B Caird, long out-of-print, but can easily be picked up second-hand.

I think he gets to the heart of Luke 2:1-7 succinctly in a way that many more detailed commentaries don't.

On Saturday, I posted notes from Darrell Bock's commentary on Luke (paid link), addressing the questions that are often asked of the historicity of the census mentioned in Luke 2:1-2.

His arguments are excellent and detailed, so I wanted to reproduce them in fairly full form, as that will help some people.

I often hear it said that Luke got his history wrong in Luke 2:1-6. He refers to "the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria". It is said that there was no such census; it never took place.

This is a serious charge to levy against a gospel writer who is historically impeccable when he records any fact for which we have independent records, and who says (Luke 1:1-4) that he worked hard to check everything out with primary eye witnesses.

Much ink has been spilled on this. However, the commentary on Luke by Darrell Bock is thorough and contains a helpful excursus examining this question at length. For my own future reference, and for the benefit of others, here's a summary of his argument.

I sometimes note illustrations here that may be useful for me to find later, and that may be useful for others as well.

Here's the teaching of Christ:

Give up everything to follow Christ

This is a familiar part of what Jesus taught: It costs to follow him.