The Gospel of John: The Resurrection 20: 1 – 31

 The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a completely extraordinary event. However, like Jesus’ death, is also an event that this Gospel has often pointed to. Do you remember in chapter two Jesus said, 'If you destroy this temple, I will raise it up in three days. We are told that Jesus is talking about his body. Or the ‘lifting up’ - in chapter three. Jesus said that the Son of Man must be lifted up. And in chapter twelve, Jesus says,  ‘When I am lifted up’. Jesus is lifted up on the cross, and lifted up in the resurrection.

 Here in Chapter 20, the resurrection happens. Our chapter falls into four scenes.

 1. The empty tomb – 1 - 10

2. Jesus and Mary – 11 - 18

3. Jesus and the disciples, without Thomas – 19 - 23

4. Jesus and the disciples, with Thomas – 24 – 29

 And then there is a conclusion, 30 – 31

 The Empty Tomb – 20: 1 – 10

 Between the placing of Jesus’ body in the grave, till now, the first day of the week, Sunday, there is total silence. Nothing. A terrible thing happens, but there is silence. Sometimes that silent Saturday can seem very long, but Sunday is coming. Sunday for all Christians is a special day. It is our Sabbath, but it is also the day when we proclaim the hope of the resurrection.

 For Mary the day did not start with hope. It started in darkness. All of us know what it feels like to visit a grave. That is Mary. She sets out in the darkness to go to a tomb. In the Synoptics there were other women with her, and that is the case here too because Mary says ‘We’ in v. 2. But our writer wants the camera to be on Mary. She is a disciple to emulate.

 She comes knowing that only Jesus will be in this tomb. Thank you, Joseph and Nicodemus. You stopped Jesus being put into a common grave.

 In the early dawn light, she sees that the stone has been moved. For her that means that someone has come and taken the body of Jesus. It could have been grave thieves, they were a problem; but for Mary, more likely, it was Jews who hated the fact that Jesus had a special grave. They had taken the body and put it where they thought Jesus of Nazareth belonged – the common grave for criminals.

 Mary runs to Peter – and her concern is, ‘We don’t know where…we don’t know where the body is’. She will say the same thing twice more – look at v. 13, and v. 15. She must know where Jesus’ body is. She wants to be near to Him. Here is passion. The writer wants us to notice Mary, she is the one for us to emulate. Later the camera will turn to Thomas, on purpose. The writer wants us to notice the contrast between Mary and Thomas, and to emulate Mary.

 With Peter and the Beloved Disciple we see courage. They know that Jesus’ grave is a dangerous place to go. He was executed as a rebel. If the government sees someone going to a rebel’s grave, they too are probably rebels. They could be arrested. But something inside them responds to what Mary has said. They must find out. And now they run to the tomb. All of this running creates excitement.

 When the Beloved Disciple arrives he looks inside the tomb and see the linen clothes. The Greek word for look here is Blepo, it has the idea of a glance.

 Peter goes right inside, he also sees the linen cloths and also, v. 7, the face cloth rolled up in its own place. There is such detail here. We feel we are very near. This is vivid history. Our writer was there. The Greek word for look here is theoreo which means to look carefully. To focus. To observe

 Now, the Beloved Disciple goes in and looks, And we read – ‘he sees and believes’. The word for see used here is Eiden, to perceive.

 He looked. He beheld. He perceived. The writer wants us to see that in faith there is often a journey. We start with a glance at the Christian faith, then there is more focus, we start thinking seriously about Christ. And then we perceive.

 What though did the Beloved Disciple perceive? In v. 9 we are told that neither Peter nor the Beloved Disciple understood the Scripture that Christ must be raised from the dead. The Beloved Disciple probably did not suddenly receive a full understanding of the resurrection, but he certainly saw that the empty grave was not caused by grave thieves. No grave thief would say, ‘Oh, I must roll up this head napkin neatly’. He understands that something supernatural has happened, but he is not quite sure what. He just knows that more will happen.

 v.10 is a difficult verse. The men went home. We would have expected them to stay with Mary, to think about this more. But no, they both go home. Then we have a famous New Testament, ‘But’.  ‘But Mary stayed’ v.11. There is a contrast here, and the writer is wanting us be like Mary, to stay in the last place Jesus was.

 Jesus and Mary 11 – 18

 For Peter and the Beloved Disciple there were only the linen clothes. Physical evidence. For Mary there are two angels – heavenly evidence. This is underlining the importance of staying.

 And weeping. Mary is crying outside the tomb, and still crying when she enters the tomb. Usually you don’t see much when your eyes are full of tears, but Mary sees more when she is weeping.

 The two angels are sitting, one near where Jesus’ head was, the other where his feet were. They are at either end of the flat ledge in the wall where Jesus had lain. For many this speaks of the mercy seat of the tabernacle described in Exodus 25. Here there were two cherubim, one at either end of the mercy seat. That is beautiful, for truly here is our mercy seat, the empty tomb of Jesus Christ.

 For Mary the angels underline the absence of Christ’s body This has been called, ‘the presence of the absence’. The body should be between the angels, but it is not there. This makes Mary more agitated. Perhaps another wave of tears came over her so the angels ask, ‘Woman, why are you weeping?’ The question seems out of place. She is grieving, that is why she is crying.

 The question is a gentle rebuke. ‘Woman – why are you weeping when he told you there would be a resurrection? Why are you weeping when now you can see the evidence for the resurrection? Not just the grave clothes, but we two angels – we are proof that something wonderful is happening. Woman – you should be laughing, not weeping. The resurrection is real.’

 Mary tells the angels why she is weeping. There is a ‘they’. There is a group of people who want to hurt Jesus, even when he is dead. So ‘they’ have taken away his body from this good grave. She is almost certainly thinking of the Jews. But she is not going to give up. So, she doesn’t seem to care that she is talking to angels, she doesn’t ask them who they are or where they have come from. She just has one concern – she doesn’t know where Jesus’ body is.

 What happens next is strange. Mary is waiting for an answer from the angels; but she turned around. Why would she turn around? There must have been the sense of a presence. Without seeing, she must have understood that someone else was now in the tomb. And that person was more important than even the angels.

 She sees Jesus, but she does not know it is Jesus. In her mind the Jesus she was going to see would be a corpse, lying down. But this man is standing. So that cannot be Jesus.

 Jesus, v.15, asks the same question as the angels, ‘Woman, why are you weeping?’

And then, ‘Whom do you seek’. Jesus’ question takes us to chapter one when Andrew and the other disciple were following Jesus. There Jesus asked them, ‘What do you want’. They wanted to see where he was living. Like those two disciples, Mary is seeking where Jesus’s body is, but Jesus’ question changes. It is not what, it is whom: whom are you seeking?

 Mary’s only concern is Jesus’ corpse. So she doesn’t answer Jesus’ question, but  thinking Jesus is the gardener she asks where the body is. She wants to take the body and make sure there is a safe grave which she can look after. She is seeking a what – a dead body – and a where – the place where that body is. But Jesus doesn’t ask her about the what and where. He asks her about who.

 The ‘what’ and the ‘where’ is never enough. The ‘what’ and the ‘where’ must change to the ‘who’. For at the heart of all meaning, all understanding, is not a ‘what’ or a ‘where’ - but a ‘who’. The question is not what is God; the question is not where is God – the question must be – who is God?

 By thinking Jesus is the gardener, the writer again tilts the camera to remind us that we are in a garden. So of course there was a gardener. That takes us right back to Adam in Genesis 2. He was told to look after the garden of Eden. That was the beginning of creation. Now we are again in a garden with our new Adam, our second Adam, Jesus, raised from the dead. Man again is going to work with God to look after creation.

 In Genesis it is clear that Adam and the Lord God had fellowship. But for Mary there can be no fellowship till she sees who Jesus is. And with her eyes it’s not happening. She has seen the linen cloths, the face cloth, the angels, and now Jesus himself – but still she thinks that the only thing that matters is that she finds Jesus’ corpse.

 Until she hears her name. He says her name. And she sees -  with her ears. Jesus says, ‘Mary’. One word and her whole world changes. The good shepherd who knows his sheep by name, has spoken her name. That’s enough for her. She bursts out with ‘Rabboni’, which the writer translates into Greek as being Teacher. In fact this word in Aramaic can also refer to meaning God. However teacher is very fitting, for a teacher is the one who communicates who God is, the one who brings light to every man, the one who makes God known (1:18)

 Now we imagine Mary wanting to give Jesus a hug, but he says ‘Don’t cling to me because I haven’t ascended to the Father.’ It’s a mistake to think this means she couldn’t touch his resurrected body. We know it was fine for people to touch Jesus’ resurrected body because Jesus asks Thomas to do exactly that later on in this chapter. So what does Jesus mean? Many people think that Jesus is saying to Mary, ‘Don’t think that you can keep things as they were, don’t cling, don’t become dependent on me as I am now, because I am on my way to the Father. The ascension has to happen. The lifting up has not finished. You cannot have the resurrection without the ascension.’ That makes a lot of sense.

 Mary was wanting to ‘take him away’ (v.15). For her, it was all about Jesus – his corpse – and Mary. She was going to care for the grave. But that is not Jesus’ view at all. Yes, He has seen her devotion, her tears, and she is the first disciple he has shown himself to, but now what? It is for Mary to be a witness. We are right back to John 1:19, ‘This is the testimony of John’. Jesus tells Mary,  ‘Go. Go and tell’ Tell who? We expect to read ‘the disciples’, but He says, ‘Go and tell my brothers’. This is the first time we have heard Jesus say this. He is telling Mary, them, us – we are family. And this emphasis continues. In v. 17 Jesus says, ‘My Father and your father, my God and your God.’ The resurrection has happened. Now the ascension must happen, and Jesus wants his family to know this.

 Mary is the first apostle. She goes and she says exactly what Jesus tells her to. She is obedient.

 Before moving to the next scene this part of the story again shouts out that the empty tomb is historical. Enemies of Christianity, especially in the secular West, they say these stories have been made up. It’s fiction. This account asks them a question which they cannot answer. If anyone at that time wanted to make up a story to persuade other people that a man had been risen from the dead surely, they would have made the first witness a man of importance, like Nicodemus or Josephus. Who making up this story would ever have chosen a woman from whom seven demons had been cast out? Nobody. There is only one reason why Mary is the first apostle. Because she was. This account is true. It is history.

 Jesus with the disciples, but without Thomas 20: 19 – 23

 Early in the morning Jesus appeared to Mary. Now in the evening there is a meeting. Some think that only ten were there – the twelve, minus Judas and Thomas. Others think there would have been more, for when the writer says disciples this doesn’t have to just mean the apostles. I find it hard to think that Mary, as the first witness, would not have been there. And in Luke 24 we read that Clopas and his friend, after Jesus left them, went back to Jerusalem. More than just those ten were there.

 These Jerusalem disciples have gathered together in the evening, when it was dark. And there is fear of the Jews, that’s why the doors are locked. The Jews had killed Jesus, they could kill them. It was a dangerous situation.

 And into this darkness and fear, Jesus comes and stands among them. His first words are ‘Peace be with you’. Do you remember what he promised in his farewell teaching? He promised them peace. And now, after the cross and resurrection this is the first thing he gives, his peace. Not once, but twice. In v. 19, and in v. 21. Why twice? We have to see what is between these two times that he says ‘Peace’. He shows them his hands and his side.

 The first peace is his presence. That is beautiful. The second peace is after he shows his wounds. That brings a deeper peace, and great joy, for we read the disciples were glad. The wounds bring a deeper peace because this proves this is the Jesus they knew. Yes, he is different now, but also the same. This is not a dream or a fantasy – this is reality. The Jesus who was crucified, is the Jesus standing with them now. And later they – and we – will understand why these wounds bring a deeper peace. It is because they speak of His love for us. This is how much we are loved.

 Peace, joy – and being sent. As the Father has sent Jesus, so now they are sent. It would be a terrible mistake to squeeze this into just evangelism. The sending is about evangelism but so much more. It is – as Jesus was sent. This means that we are sent to –

 To be steeped in the Scriptures, as Jesus was; to live with other disciples; to teach; to bring healing and exorcism for others; to be concerned about individuals; to serve, even washing feet; to pray; to suffer and die for others. We are not to just go and like a machine share a packaged message we call ‘The Gospel’. We are to go – as Jesus went.

 After the sending, Jesus breathes on them and says ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’. This is not a second Pentecost. There is one day of Pentecost, and the writer knew all about that day. He is not saying this day happened on that first Sunday. What then is this? To be sent as Jesus was sent, how, how could these disciples do that?

The disciples probably looked pretty nervous. We can’t go as you went. Jesus’ response was to breath on them. That takes us again back to Genesis, where God breathed into Adam and he became a living being (Genesis 2:7). It also takes us to Ezekiel and the famous story of the valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37). And, of course, it takes us to Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus where we learn that the Holy Spirit is like wind. Jesus breathes on them and says – I am sure with a big smile – ‘Welcome Holy Spirit’. This is why you can go like I went.

 Jesus is saying – the Holy Spirit is on his way. As said, this is not Pentecost. This is what some people call symbolic prophecy, or an acted-out parable. So, the breathing is symbolic. It is just like when the Greeks came to Jesus in John 12 and seeing these Gentiles Jesus says, ‘The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified’. But nothing happened that hour. The suffering happened days later. But the arrival of the Greeks meant it would definitely happen. So here Jesus is saying – the coming of the Holy Spirit, this will definitely happen, and maybe at that time the disciples there sensed something special, no doubt they were encouraged by the gentle breath of Jesus in their hearts. For all of us there is a special Pentecost experience, exceptional, unique, a one off; but there is also the daily gentle breathing of Jesus in our hearts.

 The result of this sending and receiving of the Holy Spirit impacts others. As Jesus said about the ministry of the Holy Spirit in his final teaching, there will be a confrontation with sin. And, as this Gospel has made clear, the greatest sin is not to believe in Jesus. Seeing these disciples, others will have to make a choice. To believe or to reject. If they believe, and if the disciples see that this is genuine, then God – not the disciples – will forgive their sins.

 The second part of v. 23 has two interpretations. Most think this is the natural consequence for those who reject Christ and the message of the disciples. Those people will stay in their sins. The assumption of translators is that the verse is talking about withholding forgiveness of sins, but those words ‘forgiveness of sins’ are not there in the Greek. It is a very fair assumption, but this is what the Greek says

 Ever of any you may be holding, they are held.

 So this can also mean that if the disciples hold those people fast, then they will be kept. It is talking about how the disciples can keep people in their faith.

 Perhaps, as is typical with this author, he wants us to understand both meanings, because both are in line with other teaching in the Bible.

 In this scene we see the first church meeting. We should note its characteristics.

 Disciples gather together on Sunday. The doors are locked. There is a separation from the danger of the world. Jesus comes and there is the peace of fellowship, with Him and each other. The presence of other Christians definitely brings peace. Jesus shows his wounds. This is God’s love. This must happen – in the worship, in the preaching, in Holy Communion. Our hearts are fed by the grace of the wounds of Christ. We are sent out, full of the Holy Spirit.

 The above is a good check list for our own church meetings, to make sure our church meetings are in line with this first meeting. Somebody wasn’t at that meeting, we must turn to him now.

 Jesus and Thomas, with the other disciples 20: 24 – 29

 We met Thomas in Chapter 11. He came across as a little depressed, the pessimistic type. The disciples were not happy to go to Bethany because it was dangerous. When they see that Jesus isn’t going to change his mind, Thomas says, ‘Okay, let’s go to Bethany– and we will die with Jesus.’

 In John 14, Thomas is negative. Jesus asks if they know the way he is going and Thomas says, ‘Look Jesus, we don’t even know where you’re going, so how can we know the way?’ He sounds a little upset.

 We again see this negative streak when the other disciples tell him they have seen the Lord. It is not pleasant. He has been working with these people for three years and in v.25 he says, you are either lying; or you have gone a little mad. And he says he will never believe – unless he literally touches Christ’s wounds. There is pride here. He is saying, ‘I know better than you.’

 Because Thomas did not go to that first meeting, his character weakness got worse. Same for us when we don’t go to church. For a week there is silence for Thomas. There is no private meeting with Jesus. Nothing – until he goes to the next meeting.

Notice how similar the meeting is to the one the previous week. They come together, the door is locked, Jesus comes and he says, ‘Peace’ to them. And then, just like in the first meeting, he shows his wounds – but especially to Thomas.

 Thomas has been negative, critical, refusing to believe his friends and refusing to believe what Jesus had said in his final teaching. His situation is dangerous. But Jesus comes and is willing to not just show Thomas his wounds, but he is ready for Thomas to touch them. He wants Thomas to believe. This is kindness.

 But where does it happen? It happens in the weekly meeting. The message to us all is very obvious. Don’t miss church. If you miss church, your character will get worse; if you go to church, that is where you will experience fellowship with others and with Christ, this is where your heart will be fed.

 We will never know whether Thomas touched the wounds of Christ or not. I don’t think so. I think he stared at Christ. I think he wept. I think he fell sobbing at Christ’s feet – and then, after such failure, we have the greatest confession of faith in the Gospel. Till now nobody has called Christ God. Thomas does. He says, ‘My Lord and my God.’

 This is full Christian belief. Jesus affirms this belief, but then gives a blessing to the millions like us who will believe even though we have not seen him. This is the second blessing Jesus gives in this Gospel. The first is for when we wash each other’s’ feet…if you know these things, blessed are you if you do them (13:17). Here is the second. Put them together and we have – trust Jesus, serve others and you will be blessed. That’s not difficult to remember.

 So our four scenes end. This feels like the end of the whole Gospel. Jesus with his disciples, the Holy Spirit definitely to come, and the greatest confession a man or a woman can make. And so a conclusion in verses 30 – 32. The writer tells us that there were many more miracles or signs that Jesus did which his disciples saw, but he hasn’t written them down because there are too many.

 But why these signs? So we may read, and believe that Jesus is the Christ, Son of God – and so have life. And, as is typical with our author, the word believe here can have two meanings. A lot has been written about this. This can either mean believe for the first time, to come to faith. So, this is written so you may become a Christian. Or it can mean, this is written that you keep on believing, you keep on as a Christian.

 Let’s go for both. This Gospel has helped millions come to faith. And this Gospel has helped millions keep the faith.

This lesson is already too long so let me end with a story about the empty grave, the centre piece of this wonderful chapter. Around Easter ninety year Nikolai Bukharin, a senior member of the Communist party in Russia, went to Kiev to give a lecture on atheism to a large crowd of workers. He attacked Christianity for about an hour. At the end he asked if there were any questions. A man came up to the platform. He didn’t ask a question. He just said, ‘Christ is risen’, and the crowd shouted back, ‘He is risen indeed’.

 Whatever you are facing today – the grave is empty. Christ has risen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Gospel of John: The death and burial of Jesus Christ 19:16 – 42

 Today we go into the heart of darkness, and the heart of light. The death and burial of Jesus Christ, John 19: 16 – 42.

 From the time John the Baptist cried out, ‘Behold the Lamb of God’, through to when Mary anoints Jesus’ body for burial, so the writer, in every chapter, tells us that Jesus must die.

 And now the most famous death in human history – happens.

 The first scene is poignant (v.17). Jesus ‘went out bearing his own cross’. The sin bearer, going alone to where God has sent him. There is no mention in this Gospel of Jesus collapsing and needing Simon of Cyrene to help him, as in the Synoptics. No doubt this happened later, but our writer prefers to keep the camera on Jesus going out alone to ‘The Place of A Skull’. The shape of the hill, known as Golgotha, and Calvary in Latin, says it all: this is about death. There was a tradition that Adam’s skull was buried there, and so, the second Adam goes with his cross to atone for the first Adam’s sin.

 In v. 18 we read, ‘There they crucified him’. There is no lingering over the violence and brutality of crucifixion, but instead we are asked to look at Jesus between two others. He is at the centre with the sinners. This is his throne, these are his subjects.

 We then have four verses about the notice that Pilate had put up over Jesus’ head (19-22) For the Romans this was important. They wanted people seeing the crucifixions to know what the crime was that deserved such a terrible punishment. Jesus’s crime is sedition, that he is the king of the Jews. So this is written in three languages – Aramaic, the language of the Jews; Latin, the language of the Romans, and Greek, everyone’s language. And so three times we read that Jesus on the cross is ‘The King of The Jews’. As in the last lesson, we are back to irony and identity.

 There is irony that Pilate was very weak about a matter of great importance – the innocence or guilt of Jesus; but stubborn when it came to this matter of what to write on this notice: ‘What I have written, I have written.’ There is also spiteful revenge. The Jews had humiliated Pilate, he now wants to humiliate them with this notice. And of course, identity: Jesus is King. And again irony, the king’s throne is a cross.

 The notice is in three languages, so the Jews from the Diaspora gathered in Jerusalem for the Passover would be able to read it. That is Pilate’s reason for writing the notice out in three languages. Ironically then this unscrupulous politician proclaims to us all that Jesus of Nazareth is not just king of the Jews, he is king of every living being.

 We now come to what happens when Jesus is on the cross, The first event is about the soldiers and Jesus’ clothes (23 – 24). Crucifixion is not just about physical pain and death. It is very much about humiliation, the ripping away of all human dignity. So, the victim is stripped naked and then nailed to the cross.

 It was normal for the soldiers to take the clothes for themselves. What is different here is that one piece of the clothing was seamless. Rather than tear it up, the soldiers decided to throw lots for it – and this was exactly according to the prediction in Psalm 22: 18. ‘They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots’. The writer again reminding us about who is controlling events: the God who inspired the Old Testament.

 Some have suggested that the seamless tunic is a reference to the robe the High Priest wore. This is not certain. But, as we saw during the trial, the writer was wanting us to ask – who is the real high priest here? And on the cross, Jesus was a priest, bringing man to God through his own suffering.

 At the end of v. 24 we read, ‘So the soldiers did these things’ They gambled for Jesus’ tunic. It is a picture of rough, hardened men doing their job.

 Then we have a very different picture (25 – 27). We have four people who love Jesus. The writer wants us to see this contrast as the reality. Either we are like the soldiers, not caring for who Jesus is, just wanting to profit from his suffering; or we are like these four, wanting to be near him.

 The first is Jesus’ mother, whom we first met in Chapter Two. The second is another Mary. She is his mother’s sister and the wife of Clopas. In Mark this woman is called Salome, and in Matthew she is called the mother of John and James, the sons of Zebedee. So, John Zebedee was Jesus’ cousin. The third is yet another Mary, Mary Magdalene. There is no introduction given about her at all. Just her name. Again this shows that the writer expects his readers to have read the Synoptics where there is more about Mary Magdalene. And the fourth is the Beloved Disciple, the writer of this Gospel. He has followed Christ to Annas’ house, now he is here by the cross.

 We can understand why the Roman soldiers allowed three women to get near the cross. They posed no threat. But why did they allow a man to come near? There are stories of friends trying to pull down the person being killed on the cross. Perhaps the soldiers thought he was not a threat, or, more likely, they saw that the Beloved Disciple was a very important figure in Jerusalem – known to the High Priest as we learned in Chapter 18 – and so they allow him to be there.

 Jesus sees his mother, and is concerned for her. What a terrible scene for any mother. So from the cross, he seeks to comfort her: ‘Yes, I, your son, I am going, but here is your son. The Beloved Disciple becomes Mary’s son and she becomes his mother. They become family, and he takes her to his home.

 What of Jesus’ brothers? They were not believers. That will happen later, after the Resurrection. Jesus wants his mother to be looked after by one of his followers, not by his brothers who did not believe in Him.

 So at one level this is about Jesus showing love to his mother. But there is another level. We have a cross in the middle of two others, and there is a garden nearby (v. 41) and we have a man and a woman in front of that cross. Many see here a new Adam and Eve, in front of another tree of life.

 From the cross Jesus is ordering the start of a new people, a new family – this is your mother, this is your son, this is your sister, this is your brother, and we already know from the teaching Jesus gave what the rule of that family is to be, it is to be the rule of sacrificial love. Mary to love the Beloved Disciple as Jesus loves them now – from the cross, the Beloved Disciple to love Mary as Jesus loves her now – from the cross. The start of the church is at the foot of the cross, and it continues in a home, v. 27.

 Our next section is Jesus’ death and the piercing of his side. (28 – 37).

In the three verses that the writer uses for Jesus’ death, the writer wants to emphasize the authority of Jesus. It is Jesus who knows when he is going to die – not the soldiers, nor Pilate as we will learn later. And it is Jesus who bows his head and He gives up his Spirit.

 And again the writer wants us to understand the importance of Scripture being fulfilled. The ‘I thirst’, is again a reference to Psalm 22 – this time v. 15.  

 When Jesus says ‘I thirst’ the soldiers give him sour wine. This was not to help Jesus, this was to make his pain worse. Some say there is a reference to the Passover here. For in the Exodus story every Israeli had to put the blood of that lamb over his door. This was done using a hyssop branch. That is what the soldiers use here.

 There is much painful irony here – and much kindness

 Jesus is the one who gives the water of life so we may never thirst; remember John 4. But here, the giver is the one who suffers the most terrible thirst. We drink the water of life because He became thirsty. And

Jesus is the one who gives the best wine, remember John 2. But here he is given the very worst, sour wine. This is tragic irony, but also we are astounded at the generosity of Jesus. He gives all, we take all.

 After taking the sour wine, Jesus says, ‘It is finished’. What beautiful words. It is accomplished. The work of salvation of every human being has been achieved. Jesus has completed the work his Father gave him to do, he has drunk the cup to the bottom.

 In the Greek it does not say that Jesus gave up His spirit, but the Spirit. Some believe this is a reference to the Holy Spirit. This is suitable because throughout the Gospel there has been a connection between the death of Jesus and the giving of the Spirit. So John the Baptist says ‘Behold the Lamb of God’, referring to Jesus’ death, but he also says, I saw the Spirit remain on him’. With Nicodemus Jesus must be lifted up – his death – and Nicodemus, all of us must be born again of the Spirit. Perhaps the clearest reference is in Chapter 7: 37 – 39 when Jesus says that all who will believe in Him will have rivers of living water in their hearts, and then the writer explains that this will happen – after his death. And throughout the Farewell Discourse Jesus keeps on saying, it’s better that I go away, it’s better that I die, because then the Paraclete will come. So the Greek makes sense. Jesus gave up – the Spirit. As he died, so the Spirit is given.

 John is the only Gospel to tell us about Jesus’ side being pierced. It is very important. Jesus was crucified on the Friday, the next day – which started on Friday evening – was a high Sabbath, because of the Passover. When someone was crucified it could take a day or two for them to die, and then the corpses would stay on the cross to be eaten by vultures. This helped the Romans , for the longer the victims were on the cross, the longer the warning to others was there. So this was the normal practice. However,  the Jews don’t want the grisly sight of three bodies on three crosses to cast a shadow over their Passover. They want Jesus and those two thieves taken down and buried – that would be in a common grave for criminals. So they come to Pilate to ask him to give orders for the legs of the three to be broken. This would mean the weight of their bodies would collapse their lungs, they wouldn’t be able to breathe, and they would die. Pilate gave his permission and so the soldiers come to break the legs of the victims.

 But Jesus is already dead.

 There was no need for anything else to happen. His body just had to be taken down and buried. The soldiers had no other duty. So it seems to be completely a matter of chance that one soldier decides to pierce Jesus’ side with a spear.

 The writer then brings the camera very close and says look, now look at what happened. Blood and water came out. Medically this is very likely, you can read about that. But it is not the science the writer wants us to take in. He wants us to understand the significance of blood and water coming from the broken body of Jesus Christ. This is not just another detail. This is something he wants us to take in, to believe, for this is at the heart of our Christian faith. That is why he says – ‘I was there, I saw this with my own eyes. This is not a made-up story. This happened.’ (v.35)

 Why is this so important?

 One reason is that, again, the writer is underlining how Scripture is being fulfilled. This soldier, who had no reason to pierce Jesus’ side, he was fulfilling two Scriptures. One is Psalm 34:20 that no bone of Jesus would be broken, and the other is Zechariah 12:10, that we would look on him whom they have pierced.

 We should be in no doubt, the death of Jesus of Nazareth happened because this was the will of God – in every detail.

 And surely we should see that this is the new temple. Jesus told us this back in Chapter 2: ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will rebuild it’ (2:19). We were told in Chapter 4 that the different temples the Samaritans and the Jews were using were not important (4:21). In Chapter 5 we saw that the temple could not bring healing to the crippled man, and in Chapter 7 Jesus is in the temple when he talks about rivers of water. He was saying, the water does not come from this temple. It comes from the temple of my body.

 Two things happened in the temple; and one thing outside. In the temple the wrath of God is satisfied by the blood of the sacrifice. That then means, secondly, there can be fellowship with God.

 When the writer says – ‘I saw the blood’, that is what he is saying. In this temple, the blood deals with the wrath of God, in this temple there can be fellowship between man and God.

 And then on the outside, water is meant to flow. This is what we read in Ezekiel 47. There we have a vision of a river of life flowing from the temple. There was no river flowing from the temple in Jerusalem full of life for others, there was just nationalism there.

 But here, at the cross of Jesus, the writer says – ‘I saw the water, I saw the water flowing from the broken body of Jesus Christ.’

 The cross of Jesus Christ – the place of cleansing for our sins, and the place the Holy Spirit gives us new life.

 So we come to the burial in v. 38 – 42. The account starts – as it does in the Synoptics – with Joseph, a member of the Sanhedrin, seeking permission from Pilate to deal with the body. This was courageous of Joseph. It was also kind. Without Joseph’s appeal to Pilate,  Jesus’s body would have been buried in a common mass grave for criminals  Shame would have followed him to the grave. Joseph does not want that to happen. He wants Jesus to be buried with dignity.

 And why did Pilate agree for this to happen? Because he knew that Jesus was not a criminal. He knew he deserved a decent burial. And – as with the notice on the cross, he knew this would upset the Jews. They wanted Jesus of Nazareth to be buried with all the other criminals.

 While this account is similar to what we have in the Synoptics, as is so usual with John, we are told more. We are told that Joseph was a ‘secret follower’ of Jesus; we are told that Nicodemus – whom we last heard from in Chapter 7 is with Joseph of Arimathea; we are told that Nicodemus brought a lot of spices with him; and we are told that this new grave – was in a garden.

 Each detail is important, and enriches the story. Let’s look at them – Joseph and Nicodemus, the spices, and the garden. For the burial of Jesus, the writer brings not just Joseph into the story, but Joseph and Nicodemus. Both of them were members of the Sanhedrin. You will remember that Jesus called Nicodemus a ruler of the Jews. They were important people. That is why Joseph could visit Pilate when most surely his office was closed.

 What is the significance of these two important men coming to bury Jesus? There are two things here. The writer called Josephus a ‘secret follower’ then he reminds us that Nicodemus first came to Jesus at night – also in secret. But both of them – even while in the Sanhedrin – had been drawn to Jesus. The significance? The writer is saying anyone can follow Jesus, anywhere. Never make the mistake that just because someone is working in a particular situation they cannot follow Jesus. Church history is full of people like Nicodemus and Josephus.

 And then secondly, while they were secret believers for a season, perhaps that was wise, eventually, at the end of the story, they must come out of the night, and they must show their devotion to Jesus. Being a secret believer is always a temporary situation.

 Now let’s consider the spices which we don’t hear about in the Synoptics. Nicodemus brings a lot with him: 45 kilos. These were to keep the body from decaying. Perhaps so much was needed because of the Sabbath, but many suggest that here the royal identity of Jesus is being underlined, because an extravagant amount of spices was used for a king.

 Throughout the arrest, the trials, the crucifixion the author has always wanted to show that Jesus is the suffering King. Now surely he is doing the same – two rulers of the people come to bury him with spices in a tomb nobody has used. This is the burial of a king.

 We come to the last detail John tells us that the Synoptics don’t. The garden. This is one of those hidden doors. We push and there is quite a lot behind this word. Man is created and put in a garden. Man is then tempted to disobey God and disaster happens - in that garden. Man is expelled from Paradise, and there are angels to make sure he cannot come back.

 Then there is another garden, the garden of Gethsemane and here a man decides to do God’s will, not his and so we have another tree of life. Paul calls the cross, a tree.

 So now we are told that this grave is in a garden. This means that the garden story has not finished. We sense that something is going to happen. And something will happen in that garden in the next chapter.

 Chapter 19 is not an easy chapter, but it ends in a garden and this brings hope for gardens are places where new life bursts forward.

 As always, what a blessing that we have John’s account of Jesus’ burial. It enriches us.

 What to say in a conclusion? Maybe this. Let’s return to the cross. Jesus said, ‘It is finished’. That in Greek is one word. It is the word you write on a bill when it has been paid. The price for our salvation has been paid. It is finished. The blood has been shed, it cleanses us from all sin. And the water of life – right now is flowing from the broken body of Jesus Christ.

And of course there is more. See here - 

https://sternfieldthoughts.blogspot.com/2025/12/the-gospel-of-john-resurrection-john-20.html

 

People who call opponents of Christian Zionism satanic should be given a wide-berth

 These brief comments are written in response to the August, 2025 article, ‘Mouthpieces of Satan: The attack on Christian Zionism’ found on the website, 'Christians United For Israel.’ 

https://www.cufi.org.uk/news/mouthpieces-of-satan-the-attack-on-christian-zionism/

The tone and content of the article provides evidence as to why the wise Chrisitan will give these sorts of supporters of Zionism a wide berth.

 Bullying Tone

 This is how the article starts -

 Just as Israel is under attack from every conceivable angle, Christian Zionism is also coming under increasing attack. There is a real attempt by Satan to try and bring division between Christians and between Christians and Jews. Sadly, much of this new surge of attacks is coming from confessing Christians. They are calling Christian Zionism ‘heresy’ and a ‘false belief’ and are saying that we are acting against God; in some cases they question our Christianity altogether. This is a demonic attack that must be countered with the full force of God’s Word

 This is problematic. The author refers to Satan in the second line, and ‘demonic attack’ at the end. When people accuse people they disagree with of being ‘Satanic’, it is a bullying tactic. They are demanding that the reader agrees with whatever they are going to write, for if they don’t, then they are slipping into Satan’s territory.

 Ignoring The Context

 The article says that it is correct to say Zionism’s opponents are mouthpieces of Satan, because Jesus called Peter ‘Satan’ when he rebuked Peter for complaining about the suffering there would be in Jerusalem (Mark 8:33). To apply this to all those who do not sign up to Christian Zionism is not impressive.

 The reason why Jesus called Peter ‘Satan’ was because Peter was asking Jesus to avoid the cross, just like Satan did in the wilderness. Peter was also focusing on the importance of a present time political salvation; not the future coming of the Kingdom of God. The argument between Christians about Zionism is completely different. Careful thinking means considering the context. This loose thinking does not strengthen the accusation that opponents of Zionism are ‘Satanic’. It just adds noise.

 The scent of arrogance

 The tone of the writer when dealing with Mother Stephanoppoulous has the scent of arrogance.

 Heretical? Us? Please.

 When respected Christian writers like John Stott or Tom Wright or Tony Campolo or John Piper or Tim Keller say that Zionism is less than Biblical, then most people with a humble heart would pause and consider this possibility. They would not go immediately into ‘rebuke’ mood like this writer.

 In this article the writer attacks Mother Stephanoppoulous and Tucker Carlson. Neither are known as theologians or preachers. If the writer was serious about the argument that opponents of Christian Zionism are mouthpieces of Satan he or she would have taken on the above named. The fact that the writer picks on two virtual unknowns is less than impressive.

 Disingenuous and dangerous

 We then have the claim that the Zionists are the ones who believe the Bible – literally. That is disingenuous, and dangerous. It is dangerous because if Christians obeyed the Bible literally, most of us would be in prison. We would be stoninig a lot of people: for breaking the Sabbath, (Exodus 31: 14 – 14), for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16), worshipping false gods (Deuteronomy 13, and 27), for disobeying a parent (Deuteronomy 21), and for a bride who is not a virgin (Deuteronomy 22).

 And it is disingenuous because we all read the Bible via interpretation, indeed we are taught to do that by the New Testament. This writer pats himself on the back because he takes the promises about Israel in the Old Testament literally. But does this writer eat pork? Probably. Why? Because of what is said in the New Testament.

 Christians are meant to read the Old Testament through the paradigm of the New Testament. That is the tried and tested rule of the church. And, if we follow this rule, then there is no room for Zionism. The New Testament virtually crushes the teaching that Jews are God’s favourites for salvation. Jesus is the shepherd with one flock, the church (John 10:16)  Paul bluntly states that God has no favourites (Romans 2:11). The only reference to the Jews being treated in a special way is in Romans 11, and that is to do with the what will happen around the time of Christ’s return. It is not happening now. So it cannot be applied. As for the land – the New Testament says we are to look for a ‘better country’ (Hebrews 11:6). The same goes for the writers’ discussion about the Jews. Paul defines for us what a true Jew is in Romans 2: 28 – 29. It is about the heart, not physical circumcision.

 Wisdom From Jesus’ Brother

 The writer concludes by saying that Christian Zionism is ‘the default Biblical perspective’. Not true. The default Biblical perspective centres on the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ which ushers in the Kingdom of God. The view of this writer puts the focus on a physical people and a physical land, and so plays into today’s politics. That is regrettable.

 The brother of Jesus said that ‘the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere’. (James 3:17)

 This article is neither peaceable nor gentle. It is aggressive and abusive. It is not open to reason, for if we do not believe the writer’s dogmas we are called ‘mouthpieces of Satan’. There is no mercy expressed here for those who take a different view, and what is the fruit of ‘Christian Zionism’? It is not good. A lot of Christian money is wasted on a political state, not on preaching the Gospel and serving the poor. And it supports war. It is not impartial. One hopes it is sincere, but there is the sad possibility that a wealthy propaganda machine is at work here determined to bully Christians into supporting a political view about Israel.

 If we follow James we would give this sort of material a wide berth.

 Tom Hawksley

24^th November 2025

Loathing Halloween, remembering the saints

I loathe the Halloween that thrusts tacky witches at you, sticks cheap cotton wool over garden fences, and hangs skeletons in the front window. What is it all meant to achieve? Are we supposed to celebrate the malicious servants of the devil who delight in cursing people, for that’s what witches do? Are we meant to be happy that evil spirits can haunt houses and worse?

It’s not even traditional. Just a few years ago during autumn we had harvest festivals, and Guy Fawkes night, that was enough. Now we have this dingy ghost festival dumped on us.

I loathe Halloween; but I love the eve of All Saints Day. That’s what the word Halloween means. The eve of all hallows, all Saints Day. Unlike the Brighton pier gaudiness of the nasty Halloween, this has purpose.

It is a time to remember the departed saints, the Christians, who have run the race, and have encouraged us to run our race.

And there is more than remembering. Every week in the creed we say we believe in the ‘communion of the saints.’ There is a constant, mystical, spiritual fellowship going on between the saints of all ages, a shared understanding which not even death can separate. The eve of All Saints is a good time to cherish this truth.

The eve of All Hallows then is for the saints, not the witches and skeletons; for light, not darkness; for life, not death.

And, as said, a time for remembering departed saints who have encouraged us.

Here are some whose memory is an encouragement for me.

Anthony Stubbs – a devout monk whom I only met once. But, I have his desk and I am looking at his prayer chair. Constant encouragements to study and pray. Anthony interceded intensely for South Africa, and, who knows, perhaps his prayers played a part in ending apartheid.

For more - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelred_Stubbs

Peter Goodwin Hudson – the chaplain at my school St Lawrence College who once asked me if I had thanked Jesus Christ for coming into my heart. I hadn’t. He put his finger on a problem. He was a true Christian witness to us schoolboys in those difficult and dodgy seventies.

John Coleman - larger than life father of my school friend Andrew and missionary doctor to Iran. He showed kindness to me when I became a Christian, and was a great support when I fell in love with an Iranian princess.

For more - https://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/oct/02/guardianobituaries1

John Bendor-Samuel – father of good friend Paul. He and his family helped me when I became a Christian. Slightly reserved, John was humble, sincere, and highly successful. He was the founder of Wycliffe in the UK and most of Africa. A strong oak in Christendom.

For more - see here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bendor-Samuel

George Verwer – the founder of Operation Mobilisation (OM). It was because of this group I became a Christian. They walked the talk. George kept in touch with me for years. Unorthodox, quirky, quick to see humour, always encouraging.

For more - https://sternfieldthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/03/george-verwer-founder-of-operation.html

Frank Dietz – the OM team leader who took me under his wings in the first days of my Christian life. Rugged, serious, and determined.

For more - https://sternfieldthoughts.blogspot.com/2021/02/frank-dietz-soldiers-face-gentle-heart.html

Michael Green – the vicar at St Aldates, Oxford when I was a student. Brilliant preacher. Bubbling with enthusiasm for Christ. And he laid hands on me to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

For more - https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2019/15-february/gazette/obituaries/obituary-canon-michael-green

Dennis Clark - a man of spiritual authority. He visited Oxford to preach at the Christian Union, and on the Sunday afternoon he held a seminar on Bible meditation. He marked me. 

For more - https://amen.org.uk/studies/dgc/

Fred Smith - tidy white hair, piercing blue eyes, and gentle authority. Every month he held healing meetings in the Oxford Town Hall. First he preached the Gospel - heaven or hell and invited people forward for salvation. Then he prayed for the sick. He prayed for my ulcer - and it was healed. Later I went to his church in the evenings. 

Lionel Gurney - tall, imposing founder of the Red Sea Mission, now Reach Across. He was both a complete radical, and a typical English gentleman, courteous and witty. 

Seth Yeghnazar – a formidable man of prayer and the Bible, Seth was very serious, but there was often a twinkle in his eye. He had no time for small talk, a lot of time for God talk.

For more - https://transformiran.com/learn/20th-century-christianity-in-iran/

Mark Bliss - I saw a man standing at the front of a crowded hall. His face was shining. This was Mark Bliss, the Assemblies of God missonary to Iran. Three of his children died in a terrible car accident there. He was badly injured. When he came out of hospital, he went to the piano and played, 'Great is Thy Faithfulness'. 

For more - https://news.ag.org/en/article-repository/news/2017/12/veteran-missionary-mark-blss-with-the-lord

Iris Sayyah-Sina– the widow of Iran’s first Christian martyr after the revolution. Down to earth, charming, always gentle – even in her way of asking you to hurry up at Scrabble. And she completely forgave her husband’s murderers.

For more – go to page 20 https://www.jmeca.org.uk/sites/default/files/import/biblelands_Summer2012%20web-res.pdf

Tony Sargent – a prince of preachers. I can still remember the deep silence in Karachi Cathedral after his sermon on the length, and breadth, and height, and depth of God’s love. I knew him in Karachi, and much later when he supported the charity I work for. A true English gentleman.

For more - https://www.e-n.org.uk/people/2024-07-warm-hearted-and-influential-pastor-dies/

David Carling – he suffered much in Africa, but used those scars to bless many others. Always kind and encouraging to me

For more - https://activeservicetrust.org/about/

Khosrow Ariaman - a gentle man who should never have become a Christian. He got addicted to gambling, there were massive debts, and he cried out to God. And God spoke, softly and clearly. He was a pillar in the Persian speaking church in Brighton; and was always kind to my wife and I. 

Gray Robinson – grounded and serious pastor of a nearby church who encouraged us when we were new to this area. Cancer came, but his faith held up. He believed in heaven.

For more - https://strengthforthebattle.com/about-gray-robinson/

Steve Carpenter – super sharp neighbour, also went with cancer. Steve was a war horse for the young in Guildford. The day after his death I felt a pang in my heart and then almost audibly heard, ‘I’m all right, mate’

Kevin O’Callagan– was always working for our organisation. In the kitchen, the garden, wherever a menial job needed doing, Kevin was there. He had a simple and warm faith, and could always be relied on to help.

The Bible says that the memory of the righteous is a blessing, Proverbs 10:7. It’s true. Thinking of these few here, is a blessing. I am so thankful they have cast some sunlight into my life.

Hope you can make your own list and be blessed. 

 Tom Hawksley, October 2025

Donald Hirsch’s Desk: Socialism in Austria, Limits to Growth, The Living Wage

Donald Hirsch and I are old friends. We first met in 1981 as volunteers at Simon House, the Oxford Cyrenians’ hostel for the homeless. The next year Donald got me a clerical job with a charity in London – then I went to Pakistan. He went on to become a journalist, and then an academic, specializing in defining poverty in the UK. We met each other again perhaps fifteen or so years later, completely by chance.

 One evening, I went to play tennis at my local club, and while changing ends during a match we were all politely introducing ourselves, when I was rather surprised to hear: ‘I know who you are, you’re Tom Hawksley.’

 It was Donald.

 He was living in nearby Guildford and this was also his club. So our friendship was renewed: drinks, chess, tennis – and bike rides. Donald loves planning and maps. He has devised a brilliant virtually traffic free bike route to Paris, which we have done together. See here if of interest: https://www.donaldhirsch.com/dieppeparis.html

 And Donald is the chief navigator for a bike pilgrimage from the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit in Guildford, to the Cathedral of the Holy Family in Barcelona which we’re doing in three stages. You can read my diary about the first two legs here

 https://sternfieldthoughts.blogspot.com/2024/07/a-pilgrimage-from-cathedral-of-holy.html

 And here

 https://sternfieldthoughts.blogspot.com/2025/05/pilgrimage-from-cathedral-of-holy.html

 On our bike rides Donald and I have had many discussions. A recent one was about his desk. It had quite a history which you can read about below. Donald was explaining that he was going to have to sell or somehow dispose of this desk.

 That jarred.

 The desk had come from Vienna to London, and on this desk Donald’s grand-father, Hans, had kept the cause of socialism in Austria alive in the problematic 1930s. Donald’s father, the famous economist Fred Hirsch, inherited the desk, and on it wrote endless articles for the Economist, and several books, including the influential, ‘Social Limits of Growth’. Donald’s father sadly died when he was just 46. The desk stayed with Donald’s mother, and then came to Donald. Like his father, many articles for the Economist were written on this desk, and it was from this desk that Donald’s research shaped thinking about poverty in the UK. It was this research that helped guide what the living wage should be.

 Now there was no room for the desk. Donald is no sentimentalist. Reality must rule. And the reality was that space was needed for the grand-children when they came to stay.

 Correct.

 But, can one let such a desk, with such a history, just go to a stranger? Or worse, be hurled into the bowels of a council recycling centre? It didn’t seem right. The ride ended with the tension of the doomed desk in the air. I began to send texts with salvation ideas: offer the desk to the Economist, to Christ Church (Donald’s college), to a Jewish museum. Short replies underlined what I probably knew: these suggestions were off the radar.

 And then wonderful news. Here’s the text from Donald:

 You'll be delighted to learn that my grandfather's nephew, a history professor at St Andrews, has said he'd love the desk, has space and thinks it should be kept in the family!

 This is where the desk is now. Safely near St Andrews with a close relative of Hans. John Hudson will take the desk into a new chapter of ideas, not about socialism or economics, but about Medieval Law.

 One upshot of all our talking about this desk cycling the pretty lanes of Surrey is that Donald has briefly written up its history. I found it fascinating, I hope you do too.

 It is here.

 https://www.donaldhirsch.com/desk%20travels.pdf

 And to read more about Hans, the first owner of the desk, click here

 https://www.donaldhirsch.com/Hans%20bio.pdf

 Tom Hawksley, October 2025

Territorial Spirits: A critical look at a new “key” to evangelization by Mike Wakely

 This article was originally published in 2015 by the Evangelical Missionary Quarterly, (Vol 51, No 2).  As far as I can see the essay is not available online. Thankfully the author is a friend, so here it is. 

 Mike Wakely has spent his entire working life engaged in missionary outreach in Asia with Operation Mobilisation. He is still at work – raising funds for the children who need schooling in Pakistan. If that is a cause that interests you, google him, and I am sure you’ll be able to make contact. 

Mike is also the author of the very helpful book, ‘Can It Be True?’ It deals with how doubt can creep up on all of us and what the best response is. It is very helpful. You can find it on Amazon.

 Mike lives his Christian life in the centre ground, anchored in Scripture, and the need to help the poor. Having served in India, Nepal, and Pakistan he understands that Christian mission has no easy answers. Much is mystery. Hence his response to a teaching that became popular about twenty years ago, and still lurks in the background of some people’s praying.

  Enjoy this gentlemanly demolition of dodgy teaching.

             A new theology of the unseen world is making a huge impact on strategies for world missions and evangelization. Popularized by Frank Peretti’s novels, it has been given respectability by a number of books and given a very wide public platform through the AD2000 and Beyond movement. With this new theology has come a new vocabulary that unfolds what it is all about:

 

Territorial spirits. A hierarchy of demons (authorities and powers, etc.) who have been assigned to specific geographical areas. The main proof text is Daniel 10, which refers to the “Prince of Persia” and the “Prince of Greece.”

 Strategic-level spiritual warfare. A certain kind of intercession. According to C. Peter Wagner, ground-level spiritual warfare refers to the casting out of demons from people, occult-level spiritual warfare deals with “shamans, New Age channelers, occult practitioners, witches and warlocks, satanist priests, fortune-tellers and the like,”1 and strategic-level spiritual warfare contends with “an even more ominous concentration of demonic power: territorial spirits.”2

 

Spiritual mapping. A new way of saying “research and spiritual discernment”—“an attempt to see a city or a nation or the world ¬as it really is, not as it appears to be.””3 It includes discovering where demons are most active and powerful, why they are able to hold onto those powers, and also what their names are. “Accurate spiritual mapping is based on quality historical research,” says Wagner.4 The AD2000 and Beyond Movement is establishing a Center for Spiritual Mapping.

 

The 10/40 window. The spiritually barren nations between the latitudes of 10 and 40 degrees north. However, George Otis goes further and implies spiritual significance to the area as the last shrinking bastion of demonic possession. Noting that the garden of Eden (Iran and Iraq) are at the “geographical bull’s eye” of the window, he notes that “of the many ideas on the subject of how God might intend to wind down the historical process and bring closure to world evangelization, one of the more interesting is the theory that the armies of the Lord are currently being vectored toward Eden. . . . In fact the only thing necessary for this theory to become reality is for the evangelistic forces currently surrounding the window to continue their inward advance at a more or less uniform pace.”5

 

Various other concepts spin off this theology: remitting (or making atonement for) the sins of nations as part of the prayer strategy against demonic influence in a nation; the demonization of a nation, the assumption that demons take over nations, cultures, religions, and societies as well as people.

 

This new theology of intercession and missions raises many questions. Because it has become a central plank of the AD2000 and Beyond Movement, it is essential to examine its foundations. There are clearly some positive benefits:

l. The emphasis on prayer and intercession for the nations, and the enthusiasm that has been stirred by the whole movement and its literature.

 

2. The renewed missions focus on the 10/40 window, which encompasses a high percentage of the least evangelized peoples in the world.

 

3. Results coming from the prayer emphasis and focus. Even if our theologies of prayer are perhaps not altogether correct, God surely hears and answers sincere and committed intercession.

 

4. It has harnessed the power of the imagination to assist intercession.

 

5. It has given a clear and manageable strategy for evangelization and prayer, providing for direction and purpose in approaching cities, areas, and countries.

 

6. It has excited a high degree of anticipation, expectation, and faith. More heat perhaps than light, but real heat nevertheless. The literature on this teaching is replete with examples of its success, often drawn from Latin America and Africa, as evidence of the truth of its teaching, and it is right to hesitate before criticizing a teaching which appears to work when put to the test. However, the end does not justify the means, and truth, rather than success, is our most valuable asset. If we surrender truth for a pragmatic moment of enthusiasm which catches the public’s imagination, we will have a short-term gain and a long-term setback. This concern leads me to express the following reservations about the movement, its theology, and its literature.

 

1.     It is a new theology, not rooted in historical understanding or scholarship.

 Wagner expresses surprise that, out of all the books on angelology or demonology in the Fuller Seminary library, he could find only five that “made any reference at all to territories, and of the five only three discussed the issues a bit, but clearly in a secondary way.”6 After 2,000 years of theological scholarship, that fact alone should make us question the emphasis that this teaching is now receiving. Wagner does say that he suspects this teaching must have historical roots, but they are as yet unclear.7 If these amazing things have lain in Scripture for all these years, why has no one seen them? “Bringing down territorial spirits identified with specific geographical areas is a fairly new concept,” admits Steven Lawson.8

 2.     There is very little biblical evidence of this world view.

 Even its advocates admit that there is little biblical teaching on the subject of the territoriality of a demonic hierarchy. Most  of the teaching is therefore drawn from the experiences of missionaries and Christian workers and not from the Bible. Wagner admits that his conclusions are sometimes personal guesswork: “Nothing in this verse itself (Eph. 6:12) indicates that one or more of these categories would necessarily fit the description of territorial spirits, but many, including myself, feel it is highly probable.”9

 

David Pawson says:

 

Though Scriptures are now claimed to support the method, its origins did not lie in the rediscovery of the biblical nature of mission. When examined in the light of Scripture, the evidence is meagre. . . . There are only two verses in the whole Bible that explicitly describe “territorial spirits” (Daniel 10:13, 20). Even then, it is not entirely clear whether the “princes” of Persia and Greece are human or demonic, though most scholars assume the latter. . . .  There is certainly no trace of starting missions in any new place by binding the local demonic ruler, no hint that Paul sought to identify and bind the spirits of Athens or Corinth before preaching there. Were this an essential prerequisite for releasing a situation, it would surely have been specifically included in the ascending Lord’s missionary mandate. There is no apostolic precedent, either in precept or practice. Neither is there any command for believers to “bind” the devil.10

 

Apart from Daniel 10, some other biblical evidence is offered for the territorial nature of demonic activity: the King of Tyre (Ezek. 28:12), the spirit of Babylon (Rev. 17:3-5), Bel in Babylon (Jer. 51:44), Baal-Zebub of Ekron (2 Kings 1:2, 3), and Apollyon of the underworld (Rev. 9:11), but these are small shreds of evidence on which to build a comprehensive view of a demonic hierarchy.

 

It is quite widely admitted that “the examples of territorial spirits in the New Testament are limited.”11 The harlot of Revelation 17 “is the most explicit example I have found of a demonic spirit controlling nations and peoples.”12 Given the many other interpretations of the harlot in Revelation 17, that is a clear way of saying that New Testament evidence is extremely thin. It seems very risky to build such a doctrine on so little evidence.

 

In contrast to the teaching on territorial spirits, the New Testament seems to indicate that demons need people (and on occasion animals) in which to dwell, rather than regions, houses, or territories. In Matthew 12:43-46 the unclean spirit finds no rest as he wanders through waterless places. “Then he says, ¬I will return to my house from which I came.”ÿ Just as God in the New Testament makes our bodies his temple, so it appears that demons need a human body for their home on earth.

 

A major emphasis of the teaching is that it is not only people who are demonized, but “social structures such as governments or industries.”13 “Social structures are not, in themselves, demonic, but they can be and often are demonized by some extremely pernicious and dominating demonic personalities, which I call territorial spirits.”14 No biblical evidence is offered for this belief, and it appears to be one of the areas that actually goes against biblical revelation.

 

The apostle Paul says some extraordinarily nice things about governments and the ruling powers and our need to be in subjection to them, as they are appointed by God, sometimes a difficult teaching perhaps, but not to be ignored, especially as he wrote under the rule of the Roman emperors (Rom. 13:1-7). Peter says something similar (1 Pet. 2:13-17), and Paul commands us to pray for “kings and all who are in high positions” (1 Tim. 2:2).

 

3.     There is a lot of excellent research and sound biblical truth mixed with spectacular leaps into imagination and fantasy.

 

Wagner and Otis have gone into a lot of detailed research and study and much of what they teach is excellent and useful material. Suddenly they leap, without a warning, into wild and fantastic speculation and exercises of spectacular imagination.

 

For example: In Engaging the Enemy, after an excellent introduction on principles of spiritual warfare and prayer, Wagner moves without warning away from biblical foundations and into imaginative descriptions of the demonic hierarchy that rules the earth.

 

Larry Lea “identifies four levels of territorial warfare: (1) Principalities. These are individual demon spirits. (2) Powers. This group includes the captains of teams of spirits (such as Legion in Mark 5:9). (3) Rulers of darkness. This group includes regional spirits. (4)

Strongmen. These dominate wickedness in high places and oversee the other levels of

demonic activity.”15

 

Where did he get that picture of the demonic hierarchy? There is no suggestion that it is

founded on imaginative guesswork. In fairness to Wagner, he does admit that this is more

guesswork than biblical truth. “New Testament scholars cannot find a strict hierarchical

order in Ephesians 6:12 since the same Greek terms are used with different meanings and

interchangeably in other parts of Scripture.”16

 George Otis similarly intersperses good research with dramatic speculation and spectacular leaps of his lively imagination. Much of it makes for great reading, but bears little relation to revealed truth. Here is one example among many:

 While Adam and Eve’s moral breakdown led to their banishment from Eden, there is no indication in Scripture that the serpent went with them. Instead, there is striking evidence that the serpent of Eden has established a global command and control center atop the oily residue of the garden’s once flourishing vegetation and animal life.17

 Some exegesis of Scripture is very biased to the assumed world view and quite unsound. For example, the interpretation of the “strongman” who is to be bound (Matt. 12:29). This passage is not a call to spiritual warfare with a high-ranking demon. Jesus is answering the criticism that he is casting out demons by the power of “Beelzebul, the prince of demons.”

 

First, Jesus equates Beelzebul with Satan (v. 26) and not with some territorial spirit. Second, he tells a parable about a strong man. (The word is the normal adjective meaning “strong,” i.e., a tough guy, a strong person, and not the title of a senior demon.) There is no command to us to “bind.” The parable illustrates the need to deal with the enemy in a person’s life before the Spirit of God may take up residence. This parable and its vocabulary is grossly overused and its meaning distorted in the current movement.

 

4.     This world view owes more to Frank Peretti than to Scripture.

 All the books I have read acknowledge their debt to Frank Peretti. Peter Wagner says: “Undoubtedly, the single most influential event that has stimulated interest in strategic-level spiritual warfare among American Christians was the publication of Frank Peretti’s two novels, This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness. Many Christians who had scarcely given a thought to the possibility that events shaping human society could have a relationship to struggles among powerful supernatural beings are now openly talking about the likelihood. In fact, even though they know better, many find themselves reading This Present Darkness as a documentary rather than as somewhat fanciful fiction.”18

 Peretti’s books project a fantasy-land where good and bad angels fight it out on more or less equal terms, and the really nice people never get hurt. It is great fun, sensational and exciting, but not a faithful reflection of real life nor of the unseen world as the Bible reveals it.The theology of territorial spirits, spiritual mapping, and strategic-level spiritual warfare is also exciting, sensational (especially Otis’s more dramatic projections!) and quite spectacular.It carries many of the weaknesses of Peretti’s fantasies.

 

5.     The movement opens the door to endless varieties of even wilder excess, exaggeration, and extremism.

 

Once the basic criterion of scriptural truth has been replaced by the extra-biblical basis of personal experience, imagination, and feeling, the sky is the limit as to where this teaching could take excitable people.

 

Wagner quotes: “Dean Sherman suggests that one reason we need to do spiritual mapping is that Satan has already done his mapping. ¬Like any good general, Satan’s plans to rule the earth have begun with good maps. . . . Satan knows his battleground.”Sherman’s experience bears this out.”19 It would be better if Scripture agreed.

 

Wagner says that it is very important and helpful to find out the names of the territorial spirits. “Dick Bernal, one of the pioneers of contemporary strategic-level spiritual warfare, says: ¬I cannot be too emphatic. In dealing with the princes and rulers of the heavenlies, they must be identified.””20 One can imagine the chaos and confusion this is going to cause, and the absurd, if not dangerous, results of excitable and enthusiastic people desperate to identify the “angel of their city” or the demonic “strongmen” that supposedly rule their patch of the earth.

 

6.     The arguments are based on very limited and carefully selected experiences.

 

Wagner admits in Warfare Prayer that he draws most of his illustrations from Argentina. Why? (a) Because he has a lot of experience of Argentina; (b) because an Argentinian evangelist, Carlos Annacondia, has been practicing this method of prayer, based on this kind of world view, with considerable success; and © because Argentina is a success story at the present time.

 

What Wagner does not do is (a) give any examples of those who have practiced this world view and method without visible success, and (b) give examples of those who have seen great success, revival, people movements, and church growth with totally different methods and world view.

 

Further, he fails to give adequate attention to the likely alternative reasons why there is great church growth in Argentina and in other places where through history the church has grown. He also fails to mention why other churches and evangelists are seeing similar response in Argentina without practicing strategic-level spiritual warfare. That is not to decry the methods of Carlos Annacondia, but it is vital to see the whole picture if you are drawing theological conclusions from it.

 

7.     There is no New Testament precedent for prayer warfare against demons, except at a personal level.

 

David Pawson says, “One striking feature of engagement with demons by Jesus and others in the New Testament is that they never took the initiative. They never went looking for them. Only when demons manifested themselves were they confronted and banished and even then not always immediately, as if their interference was a distraction (Acts 16:18).21

 

Referring to the passage in Daniel 10, which is the only place where spiritual beings are

referred to in relation to specified territories, Pawson says: “What needs to be noted is that

Daniel did not directly engage them, nor was he commanded to do so. They were dealt with

by angelic intervention.”22

 Direct confrontation with demons in the New Testament is always at a personal level, when and as they manifest themselves in a person. The Bible does not command us to go looking for demons, demonic activity, or “strongholds.” Ephesians 6 tells us to put on the whole armor of God because of the reality and threat of the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. It does not tell us to go looking for that source of evil or to engage them in battle.  The exhortation is to be strong, protected, and equipped.

 

When the apostle Paul came into a heathen city he did not go around “mapping it,” looking for the centers of evil, or even praying down the strongholds. He took his spiritual sword and preached the gospel. His weapon against evil was his sword, the Word of God, and an open statement of the truth. Prayer without preaching is not envisaged.

 

8.     The danger of grasping for quick and easy answers to old problems.

 

Everyone involved in evangelism is looking for the “keys” to quick and guaranteed success. When a certain method meets with some success, books inevitably follow that outline the methods. For example, we have had the Don Richardson Peace Child method, the Bangladesh “contextualization” method, the Korean prayer mountain method, the John Wimber “Signs and Wonders” method, and many more. There is much to be learned from them all, but it is essential to recognize in them all:

 

§  God is sovereign, and he uses one way to reach people in one place and another way to reach people in another area—the Korean model may not work in Taiwan, any more than the Bangladesh method works in the Philippines;

§  there is much to be learned from them all, but the touchstone of usefulness must be biblical truth.

 

9.     This teaching gives an inadequate view of the fall of man, and hence an inadequate emphasis to human responsibility.

 

Otis states, “Because all human peoples belong to God initially by right of fatherhood, Satan has no automatic control over them. Unless individuals give themselves over to the rulership of Satan willingly, they will remain under the tender influence of the Holy Spirit. Satan’s objective, then, is to gain control over the lives of human beings by dominating the systems—political, economic and religious—that they have created.”23 The ensuing argument is obvious—once satanic control has been broken men will want to listen to the Holy Spirit and will turn to Christ.

However, this is not a biblical view of man’s evil, stubborn, and rebellious heart. (a) It underrates the results of man’s rebellion at the fall and the consequences of being descendants of Adam. (b) It gives inadequate emphasis to the deceitfulness of the human heart, pride, the weakness of the flesh, etc. (c) It delivers man of his responsibility for sin and for refusing to submit to Christ.

 

The Bible states that “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4). The “god of this world” could indeed be referring to demonic activity. It could equally well be referring to the “cares and riches and pleasure of life” (Luke 8:14) that choke the seed of the word. The apostle did not blame demons for man’s blindness, nor attempt to “bind” them or rebuke them. The whole passage is about “the open statement of the truth” and the preaching of “Jesus Christ as Lord.” Man carries responsibility for rejecting “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

We fall into error when we forget that the enemies of the gospel are not only the devil, but also the world and the flesh, and the call to sinners is to repent and believe. The lust of the flesh, the deceitfulness of the heart, the attractiveness of the world, the power of the old man, the nature of Adam—all are allies of the devil, and man is responsible for his condition.  It is an error to blame demons for man’s stubborn rebellion, and naive to believe that man is just waiting to respond to the truth once the demons have been “bound.”

 10.  It presents a wholly distorted teaching on the biblical nature of prayer.

 Wagner says: “One of the reasons we need to exercise caution at this point is that we have no biblical examples of the 12 apostles or any other first-century Christian leaders who challenged the devil to a direct power encounter as Jesus did. . . . What happens when Christians today shout, ‘I bind you, Satan!’? Perhaps not as much as we would hope. Satan will eventually be bound for l,000 years, but it will be an angel who does it, not a human being.”24

 

Apart from direct encounters with demons at the moment of exorcism, there is no teaching, example, or exhortation in Scripture to address prayer to the devil or demons. But this is the emphasis of the movement—a new way to pray. Walter Wink writes, “This new element in prayer—the resistance of the Powers to God’s will—marks a decisive break with the notion that God is the cause of all that happens. . . . Prayer changes us, but it also changes what is possible for God.”25 That appears to be an extraordinarily arrogant undermining of God’s sovereignty.

 

A whole range of dramatic vocabulary is being built up around the “warfare prayer” concept, including “casting down strongholds,” “binding the strongman,” having a “power encounter” with the devil, “evicting the ruler of the city,” “taking dominion (or authority) over an area in Jesus’ name,” “storming the gates of hell,” and so on. What all this really means is sometimes hard to discern, except that it all has to do with giving direct attention to the devil and demons, which is something the Bible has not commanded us to do. In fact, it could be quite dangerous.

 

Prayer in the Scriptures is addressed to the Father, in the Spirit, and in Jesus’ name. Christ purchased a complete victory over Satan. He never commanded us to fight the devil on his behalf. Our business is with God, not Satan. We do not need to destroy Satan’s kingdom to build God’s kingdom here on earth.

11.  This teaching gives unhealthy attention to the devil and demonic activity.

 

It underemphasizes the finished work of the cross, as well as the work of the Holy Spirit and angels. There is no doubt that the central focus of “strategic-level spiritual warfare,” as well as spiritual mapping, and all that proceeds from this teaching, is the demonic. It gives sharp attention to demons and the strategies of the devil, how to find them, name them, engage them, take dominion over them, attack them, bind them, resist them, etc. But this is not the focus of the Scriptures, nor should it be that of the Christian.

 

What is missing? (a) A clear belief in the sovereignty and the centrality of God is missing, as is also the presence of the risen Christ with “all authority in heaven and on earth.” (b) The activity and supremacy of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, in his prayer life, and in evangelism is understated. So also is the ministry of angels. (Are they supposedly territorially confined also?) (c) The total, finished accomplishment of the cross, central to the New Testament, is relegated to (1) the means by which prayer is effective in “binding” demons; (2) the means by which we know that the devil will finally be overcome; and (3) the means by which we are saved. The cross has infinitely more meaning in the life of the believer than this.

 

All of this does great discredit to God and the glory of the gospel, and gives much credit to man and the importance and power of his prayers.

 

Colossians 2:15 states: “Christ disarmed (divested himself of, discarded like a garment) the

rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it (the

cross).” Dick Lucas comments on this verse: “There is no call for the believing Christian to

make too much of the “strong man” and his armor, since “one stronger than he” has already

appeared to overcome him and take away the weapons in which he trusts. . . . Freedom from

demonic forces is no second or subsequent work of grace to be sought at the hand of God. It

is, simply, the gospel privilege for all.”26

 

Satan and his demonic assistants must never be allowed to take center stage in our theology or our practice. It is Jesus who has “all authority on . . . earth” (Matt. 28:18). He reigns “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come” (Eph. 1:21).

 

END NOTES

1. C. Peter Wagner, Warfare Prayer (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1992), p. 17.

2. Ibid., p. 18.

3. Ibid., p. 151.

4. Ibid., p. 153.

5. George Otis, Last of the Giants (Tarrytown, N.Y.: Chosen Books), p. 161.

6. Warfare Prayer, op. cit., p. 88.

7. C. Peter Wagner, Engaging the Enemy (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1991), p. 39.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., p. 19.

10. J. David Pawson, The Fourth Wave (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1993), p. 69.

11. Vernon J. Sterk, in Engaging the Enemy, op. cit., p. 153.

12. Wagner, Warfare Prayer, op. cit., p. 94.

13. Ibid., p. 102.

14. Ibid., p. 96.

15. Quoted by Steven Lawson in Engaging the Enemy, op. cit., p. 38.

16. Wagner, Warfare Prayer, op. cit., p. 63.

17. Otis, op. cit., p. 99.

18. Wagner, Warfare Prayer, op. cit., p. 19.

19. Ibid., p. 152.

20. Ibid., p. 150. 21. Pawson, op. cit., p. 69.

22. Ibid. 23. Otis, op. cit., p. 88.

24. Wagner, Warfare Prayer, op. cit., p. 56.

25. Walter Wink, Unmasking the Powers. Quoted in Warfare Prayer, op. cit., p. 95. 

26. R.C. Lucas, The Message of Colossians and Philemon (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1980), p. 109.

               

                    

                                                                                  

               

 

Articles / Global Report / On the Web / Editorials / Readers Write

EMQ Archives / Subscribe / EMIS Home / BGC Home

EMQ is published by Evangelism and Missions Information Service

of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187