I'm greatly enjoying reading Against Principalities and Powers: Spiritual Beings in Relation to Communal Identity and the Moral Discourse of Ephesians (paid link) by Daniel Darko (published 2020 by Hippo Books).
He explores the significance of the spiritual powers in Paul's letter to the Ephesians, suggesting that we in the West often don't feel the full force of the letter's message because we are not atuned to see this as important.
This blog is many things, but one of them is a kind of commonplace book where I can jot things I want to find later, but done in a public blog because the things I want to find later may help others too.
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.
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.
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.
Recent comments