Romans 3:19-28 (why Mercy Seat is a better translation)

This passage occurs the week of Reformation Sunday, the last Sunday in October.

Summary:  I would like to change the dominant way of translating Romans 3:25, where we read that Jesus was the sacrifice to propitiate God's wrath.  Before we get into that though, first, I humbly offer that a previous or a future generation may shake their head at my misunderstanding!  Second, don't miss the forest for the trees.  Regardless of how you splice the key word, ἱλαστήριον, this section of Scripture brings together all of the Reformation themes of justification, the cross, God's judgement and faith!

My basic argument is this:  People often use this passage as a proof text for Jesus serving as the sacrifice to appease an angry God.  However, Paul's use of ἱλαστήριον seems far more invested in Jesus as the revelation of God's mercy rather than propitiator of God's wrath.

Key words:

ἱλαστήριον (meaning "mercy seat", 3:25)  Most translations here translate this word as "sacrifice" or "means of propitiation."  There there is little to no evidence in Biblical Greek that this word actually means that.  In Biblical Greek, the word refers only to the Mercy Seat on the ark of the covenant, not that actual thing that was sacrificed.  

The history of translation around this word "mercy seat"

• Jerome translates ἱλαστήριον as propitiation, i.e., sacrifice.
• The earliest translations of the Bible into modern European languages did not do this.  Luther translated this word as "mercy seat" in his Bible (Gnadenstuhl); the first major translation of the Bible into French follows suit (1530).  Likewise, Tyndale (1529) translates this word as "mercy seat."
• However, the English King James keeps with the vulgate idea of propitiation.  Perhaps they followed the Geneva Bible (1599), but regardless, this seems to have dominated how English has rendered this verse.

Philological research the last two hundred years

Scholarship in the early 19th century seems to have gotten hung up on the fact that Paul did not use the definite article for ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25.  Typically in the Old Testament, when ἱλαστήριον was used to translate Mercy Seat, it used an article.  Therefore, they argued, since Paul did not use the definite article, he cannot mean the place of redemption.  They also looked in other Greek sources and saw evidence that ἱλαστήριον referred to sacrificial offerings.  Also, at this time, the theology of substitutionary atonement was on the ascendant, in which Jesus is the victim of God's wrath.

However, by the late 20th century, some authors were seeking to chip away at this issue and offered that "place of forgiveness" - Jesus as the mercy seat - was a better linguistic translation.  Beyond the fact that the Bible does not employ ἱλαστήριον as the thing sacrificed, in its secular use, ἱλαστήριον didn't really describe sin offerings either.  If anything, it was a thank offering; the Trojan Horse was looked at as a ἱλαστήριον, something they should sacrificed to say thank you to the gods, specifically Athena   The biblical and Hellenistic sources did not seem to offer ἱλαστήριον as a propitiating sacrifice.  

I include here a significant quote by scholar Peter Bailey:  

Paul's predication of the term ἱλαστήριον of Jesus combined with his mention of Jesus' own blood leads modern interpreters to speculate that ἱλαστήριον was a term that could denote a sacrificial victim-hence: "whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood" (Rom 3:25, NRSV). But this is unsupported by the Greek sources...  Paul's use of ἱλαστήριον is rooted not in the Greek but in the biblical world. Here ἱλαστήριον refers most famously to the "mercy seat," the golden plate with the cherubim above Israel's ark of the covenant. Philo saw the mercy seat as "a symbol of the gracious power of God" (Mos. 2.96; cf. Fug. 100). Paul applies this symbolism to Jesus because it makes him the centre not only of atonement for sin (Leviticus 16) but of the revelation of God (Exod 25:22; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89). The terms δικαιόω and ἀπολυτρώσεως in Rom 3:24 pick up the language of the exodus (esp. Exod 15: 13) and enable Paul to present Jesus as the centre of the ideal sanctuary (cf. Exod 15: 17).  

Bailey, D. Peter. (1999). Jesus as the Mercy Seat : the semantics and theology of Paul’s use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25. [Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository]. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.17213

In 2023, I did a podcast on this topic and arrived at a similar conclusion.  I wish I had read Mr. Bailey's research first!  He has much better evidence than I did!

Let's go back to Leviticus:  Sin, debt and forgiveness

Because we have been shaped by a pagan imagination around sacrifices to gods, we often overlook  how sacrifices functioned in the Old Testament.  We need to turn to Leviticus and understand what they were actually about.  

Admittedly, one can read into Leviticus an understanding of sacrifices as satisfying an angry accountant.  Four things are true:

• God is angry over sin
• Sacrifices please the Lord
• Death is required
• Debt is a biblical metaphor for sin.  The priest basically makes the sacrifice to repay (!) your debt (Leviticus 5:13) incurred by your sin.  

And once you go down this road, it makes sense that the biggest sacrificial repayment towards God would be the perfect son of God.  How can Jesus fit into this sacrificial system other than be the one who dies on our behalf to mollify God's anger, or at the very least, serve as a huge debit in our account.  Anselm will famously pick up this "accounting" argument within a medieval motif of honor and ultimately grace. 

However, some things don't fully align with the idea of Jesus as the substitute for animal sacrifices:

• The sacrifices are supposed to be connected to inward contrition of the one sacrificing (Leviticus 5:5).  In other words, I think one could fairly argue that THE sacrifice was a broken and contrite heart, symbolized by the actual sacrifice of the animal, not smell of fat staving off God's anger.
• God explicitly does not want human sacrifice and even consecrates the Levites as a redemption  for the first-born whose living service, not death, will be their sacrifice.
• Debt is not the only metaphor for understanding sin; forgiveness of debt is not the only way to understand forgiveness of sin.
• On the day of atonement, there is nothing said about propitiating God's anger through the sacrifice of the goat.
• On Passover, there is nothing said about propitiating God's anger through the death of the lamb. 

Let's go back to Leviticus:  Sin, infection and forgiveness

I would argue that the larger metaphor for sin in the Bible is not debt, but rather pollution.  And the solution is cleansing blood!  We likely do not see this because

• In modern, Western cultures, we tend to avoid talk and thought of sin as a moral contagion, as something that has soiled us.
• In modern, Western cultures, we think of blood as about the most unclean substance in the world.

However, if you read the first few chapters of Leviticus, you will read, over and over, that the blood of animals is used to cleanse and purify.  If you lose the plot here, you can read a condensed version of this in Hebrews 10. In fact, חַטָּאת, the word for "sin offering" is increasing translated as "purification offering" to acknowledge how much sin was viewed as something needed to be cleansed rather than something needed to be paid back through sacrifice.  The forgiveness here was not in the repayment but in the cleansing, in the removal of the sin (and guilt) -- the pollution -- from the environment.

The blood of pure animals was needed because it had a life power to cleanse!!  The animal may have died, but the blood lived on.  (Holy Communion anyone!)  Within this logic, Jesus' sacrifice becomes the one that cleanses us from all unrighteousness rather than repays our cosmic debt.  God's anger is mollified, not because his nostrils were distracted, but because he sees in us righteousness!

Atonement and Mercy Seat

The mercy seat, which is the cover to the Ark of the Covenant, located in the Holy of Holies, is not per se the place where God's wrath is propitiated.  Rather, it is the place where God chooses to meet humanity.  

• And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him. (Numbers 9:89)
• The LORD said to Moses, “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat. (Lev. 16:2 )

This is all really brought home by what happens on the day of atonement.  There are two goats.  After Aaron purifies himself, he, and he alone, and only on this day, goes into the Holy of Holies.  Aaron receives the following instructions regarding the "sin offering" goat

• “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanness. 

This logic is stunning.  When this mercy seat receives the holy and purifying blood, it cleanses the people.  In other words, the mercy seat becomes the place where "God meets man", where God chooses to be a god of mercy for the people.

The other goat, absorbs the sin, and is sent out into the wilderness.  The "scapegoat", a seeming sacrifice to Azazel (for another day!).  The people are cleansed, both through the power of the blood (disinfectant) and the transference of sin to the animal (garbage collection).  Only when cleansed, can the people come into the presence of God without inviting their own destruction.

Big Picture

One can say that Jesus functions as a repayment of debt; but this severely truncates the Biblical vision of what is happening in sacrifices, especially at the Mercy Seat.  I would odder that

• Given the trust of his argument in Romans 3, Paul seems to suggest here that the cross is finally the mercy seat for all humanity, not just for cultic Judaism.  
• Like the Mercy Seat, the cross was a place of death, but on this day, for this high priest (Jesus), it came a place of life and forgiveness.
• The mercy seat is where where God chooses to cleanse us from our sins by the blood of Jesus and the absorption of Jesus of all our iniquity, killed outside of Jerusalem
• The cross is not about accounting within the old creation, but the bringing about of a new creation, founded in God's mercy
• This new creation begins in faith.
• Justice finally comes when the world isn't simply rid of previous transgressions, but each person has the full righteousness of Christ.
• I also wonder if Jesus as the Mercy Seat suggests a necessary return to the cross, as we constantly will need forgiveness throughout our life.
• Putting forward Jesus as the Mercy Seat does not, as it turns out, does not limit the need for humanity to be cleansed of their unrighteousness; it does not end the need for Jesus death; however, it switches the focus from changing God's heart to changing our hearts.

Side notes for another year

κόσμος (meaning "world", 3:6 and 19) The word "kosmos" (world here) links back to 3.6, where Paul lays out the rhetorical question, is God unrighteous to judge the whole world.

πεφανέρωται (perfect of φανερόω, meaning "appear", 3:21)  Jesus has appeared (past event) but there is still a present implication (here that we are justified through faith). Also the word "testify" (martyre-oo) is in the present suggesting that the "law and prophets" still speak (L and P is used throughout the NT to describe all of the OT (Luke 24:44 is the only place that mentions the Psalms)).

Matthew 22:34-46

This passage occurs in the RCL "Pentecost"/"Ordinary"/"Proper" Season, Year A, most recently October 2026.
 
Summary:  I suppose one could go to great lengths to parse out the Greek meaning of the words, "heart", καρδια, "soul," ψυχη, and "mind," διανοια.  After discovering that they mean different things in Greek than in English you learn that Jesus wants us to...drum roll...Love God and love our neighbor with everything we've got.  This is probably not much for a sermon, but I find it comforting that Jesus wants us to love God with our minds.  In my formation and candidacy, I often internalized guilty about my intelligence as if somehow, I just needed to be a big ball of emotions to serve God.  One of my professors, Dr. Henrich, pointed out that in this passage, we are called to love God with our mind.  This was an incredible word of Gospel to me.  Intellectual exploration of God's Word is okay too!  Funny how law can be heard as Gospel sometimes...

Key words:
διδασκαλε ("Teacher", 22:36)  Thanks be to God Jesus wasn't simply a teacher, but also the savior.  However, let us not dismiss the idea of Jesus as teacher.  The word teacher appears throughout each Gospel a total of 48 times.  What can we learn from Jesus this week?  One might understand Jesus' teaching role as salvific (if we just followed Jesus' teachings, healing and life would follow); but I would like to understand it in more dialectical and unsolved relationship.  Jesus is the world's greatest teacher of human wisdom and law.  Jesus also teaches though that finally the law is not enough to save us.  However, we cannot avoid the teachings of Jesus, including when it comes to ethics.  Also, the great teachers have a passion for their subject and also a passion for their students -- Jesus literally has THE passion for his students, us.

αγαπαω ("Love" 22:37)  One can parse the word love a number of ways.  What is interesting here is that αγαπη, which is often thought to refer to divine love, here refers to neighborly love.  A reminder that in the kingdom of God, love doesn't remain on heaven, but comes to earth.

καρδια ("heart", 22:37)  In Greek, the heart is NOT the center of emotions, but of will.   

ψυχη ("soul", 22:37)  BDAG points to the broad nature of this word.  The soul is, perhaps best said, that which makes flesh alive.  The Bible will use the word ψυχη to mean more than simply "the ghostly blue vapor" of our existence.  Perhaps another way:  our essence?  Hard to nail down...

διανοια ("Thoughts" or mind, 22:37):  As I stated in my summary, I want to point out that Jesus wants us to love God with our mind.  Also interesting is that God admits fulfilling this is impossible.  In Genesis 8:21 God says that all our thoughts (διανοια) are bent on evil.  Eph 2:3 and 4:18 are similar.  Interestingly, in Jeremiah 31:33, God says he will put the law into our minds.  All this points out that not simply our "hearts," but our minds, are also a battle ground for God, a place that needs rebirth.  (In fact, this word is often translated from the Hebrew word that means "heart" because the ancient Jewish thought located thoughts in the heart).

χριστος ("anointed" 22:42).  This is a very common word in the NT.  The reason why I bring it up here is because most of our thoughts about the word "Christ" are not what the listener's in the OT would have heard.  

The word Messiah was a loaded term that encompassed the deepest hopes of ancient Israel for the one through whom God would bring fulfillment of long-standing promises.  The challenge is that people living in Jesus' day understood differently how God would do this (although there was probably less disagreement about the end result).  There was certainly a faction that believed the Messiah would be a military leader who would overthrow Herod.  But this was not universally understood in this way.  Regardless, no one was articulating the idea that the Messiah would be a crucified rebel.

The spiritualization of this role is not  New Testament development.  That Jesus came to "take us to heaven" is a much later development.  All first century Jews, including Paul and Jesus, would have understood the Kingdom of God as heaven breaking into earth, rather than us escaping earth to get to heaven.

Grammatical review:  "Hendiadys"
A Hendiadys is a very fancy way of saying "using two words to mean one thing."  Literally from the Greek:  "One through two."  An example of this might be from Genesis 1:  "Formless and void."  They both essentially mean the same thing.  Put them together and you get:  "A whole lot of nothing." 
In this particular passage, we have a hendiadys typical of the New Testament: 
ο νομος και οι προφηται (22:40)

The law and the prophets.  This is the NT way of referring to the Old Testament.  Sometimes they will include the Psalms, but more often, just these two sections.  So Jesus isn't simply saying, "All of the commands and words of the prophets hang on these two commandments" he is saying, "the whole Bible that you know of depends on this."

John 8:31-36

This passage occurs on Reformation Sunday (last Sunday in October).
 
Summary:
This passage lays out the fundamental convictions of the Reformation:  That the normal human condition is bondage to sin; that in Christ, through faith, we are freed and Christ abides in us.  Worth noting in the Greek is the word μενω, which appears throughout the Gospel of John; justification is not here seen as simply forensic (ie, Jesus declares you righteous as if in a courtroom) but as ushering in the new creation:  Jesus abiding in us.  Worth also considering is the household nature of δουλος, or slave; not simply the worker, but also the lower member of the family.

To put it more bluntly, a sermon that talks about how the Jews have laws but we have Jesus misses the point.  Furthermore, it likely rehashes and leans into the worst parts of the Reformation and its legacy.  All humans - not just Jews - are bound to sin.  All humans - not just Jews - are bound to moral frameworks, both legal and cultural, that are infected with corruption and idolatry.  

What is our idolatry today with regard to the law?  In post pandemic society, we likely have gone to the other extreme than 1st century Judaism, in which we have equated freedom with personal liberty.  The people need to hear the hard truths of John's Gospel:  our natural freedom is to serve sin. This true freedom is not about doing our own will, but serving Christ.  A good sermon, I believe, will help people see the false narrative about a) what freedom is (individual autonomy) and b) the power of this freedom (ultimately to isolate ourselves from God and others); but a great sermon, I believe, will show people what real freedom looks like (Christ abiding in us, that gives us the strength, courage and faith to overcome all manner of obstacles).  Note, I realize that an awesome sermon would hand over the promises that create the faith to give such freedom, but I am at a point in my ministry where I do think we need to paint a picture for people of what life in Christ actually looks like.

Key Words
1. μενω : (8:31; 35, meaning “abide.”)  

This word is translated here as “belongs” or “stays” which are probably fine, but the important thing to remember is that this word appears throughout the Gospel of John repeatedly; “abide in me…”  One might argue this concept of "abiding" is the most important in the Gospel.  Furthermore, when Jesus says that the "son abides forever" (vs. 35) this son-ship ultimately will include us, who are invited to also abide in the Father's house forever (basically, all of John 14 and 15).

Some more theological commentary on verse 31 for Reformation:  The Reformation idea of "Justification" is often presented in "forensic" terms, i.e., a courtroom metaphor.  God is judge and in Jesus Christ we are declared innocent, regardless of the content of our deeds, which inevitably fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23).  While this metaphor has Scriptural warrant (see John 8:50) and preaching power, it also has its limits.  Both Paul (in Romans) and Jesus in John's Gospel move beyond simply forensic justification to new creation.  We are not simply declared free of our sins, but we are made new in Christ.  While other passages in John's Gospel delve more into this, in this passage in John's Gospel, we are "disciples" (vs 31) who receive a new status in the family (vs 35; see rest of John's Gospel). 

I realize I am stepping into a 500+ long inter-Lutheran argument about justification.  My point is to invite preachers to give at least a second thought to preaching only about forensic justification on Reformation Sunday, as if this is only what Paul, John and Luther taught.  Luther himself talks quite a bit about the new creation and when talking about justification, also describes it in terms of marriage or love between the believer and Christ.  As he writes in the Small Catechism:
"all this...in order that I may be His own, and live under Him in His kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true." 

Grammar note on verse 31.
Verse 31 is a conditional phrase.  Greek can set up conditional phrases in a variety of ways, often with ει or εαν.  They mean different things.
εαν is really the Greek word for “if."  "ει" may be listed as meaning "if" when we memorize our first Greek words, but actually ει simply sets up a conditional sentence.  In other words ει can mean "if" but also "since" or even "In fact, not in this case."  εαν leaves “the probability of activity expressed in the verb left open.” (BDAG).  In this case, abiding in Jesus' word may or may not happen.

2.   ελευθερος:  (8:32;36, meaning “free”) and δουλος: (8:34;35, meaning “slave”)

My sense of the Greek word for free is that it aligns itself with the idea of being unencumbered, not so much the freedom “for” as the freedom “from.”  But before we get into what this might mean, let's consider "slave."

Slavery provided the gas of the Greco-Roman economic engine. People became slaves through various means: captivity from war, kidnapping by slave hunters or debt. Slaves existed in all parts of the empire.

Slavery could be quite brutal, especially for slaves that engaged in mining. However, slaves often were attached to households and gained a certain amount of responsibility. Such slaves often helped raise the children (even educated them in manners), administer property, earn money and even sign legal contracts. Some slaves even owned other slaves. Even after manumission, the freed person would often pledge themselves to the former master or to a patron.  (Note: the more I read about the whole Roman society, the more I realize the whole thing is about patron-clients.  Everyone owed somebody something in this economy!)

How one puts "freedom" and "slavery" together is crucial.  This preaching of this passage likely tempts us to emphasize either a Jewish vs Christian (law vs Gospel) distinction or to emphasize our freedom over and against society's structures.  However, the New Testament suggests that while 1st century Judaism may have been caught up in its own legalism, all sorts of legalism and other forms of bondage existed then and now; furthermore, while we could say: "We had laws, Jesus comes to break laws, now we are free from these laws" the New Testament paints a more complex picture.

In fact, when the audience with Jesus says they have never been slaves, this is not true historically (see Exodus!); but it may be true theologically in that they never were slaves to God in they way they should have been.  This is perhaps a link to our "audience" today, that will protest that we've never been slaves before either.  Yet we find ourselves addicted all the time to so many things: our phones, our money, our status, our jobs, our kids' soccer teams, etc.  I think we can easily expose that our "liberty" is far less than we thought.

But I think the real preaching challenge is helping people understand the true nature of freedom.  This passage only lightly suggests what the Gospel of John and the New Testament more fully reveal:  freedom is serving -- being a slave to -- Christ.  How is service freedom?  How does the truth about Jesus -- sins are forgiven, the dead are raised, the new creation is dawning -- accomplish this freedom?

***

Sentence breakdown:  John 8:35
The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever.
Greek:  ο δε δουλος ου μενει εν τη οικια εις τον αιωνα, ο υιος μενει εις τον αιωνα
First step is to divide up the sentence into smaller parts:  divide at the comma!  
Second, look for the verb in the first part of the sentence.  In this case the verb is μενει.  You have to work a little hard because here you have the negative particle, “ου”.  So you have your verb: ου μενει which means “does not abide.” 
Then you look for your subject.  How to find a subject?  Look for nominative definite articles:  ο, το, η.  In this case, again, you have to take it one step further because you have the word δε in front of δουλος.  But now you have your subject (you can ignore “de” for now):  “ο δουλος” which means “the slave”
So now you have:  “The slave does not abide.”  The rest of the sentence until the comma are two prepositional phrases:  “εν τη οικια” and “εις τον αιωνα” which mean “in the house” and “into forever.”  Test yourself:  Why is the first example in the “dative” and the second example in the “accusative” case?

Do the same with the second half of the verse:  First, find the verb; then the subject (hint:  Look at the articles.)  Once you’ve done this, you can plow right through:  The son abides into forever.
When Greek doesn’t have participles or subjunctive phrases, it’s really a matter of finding the subject and verb; figuring out what the small words mean; conquering the prepositional phrases…and then presto, you’ve got English.

Matthew 22:15-22

This passage occurs in the RCL "Pentecost"/"Ordinary"/"Proper" Season, Year A, most recently October 2026.

Summary:  One does not find the Greek words for church and state in this passage, even though this passage is used to justify all sorts of behavior and relationships between church and state.  What is mentioned though is the word "εικον" meaning icon, or image.  The tempters of Jesus, forgetting Genesis 1, say that the coin bears the image of Caesar.  They answer the truth, but not the whole truth.  An image of a man is still an image of God.  Money, whether it says, "In God We Trust" or "Caesar" or anything, isn't exempt from God's creation.  It still has to do with humans and how we live in this creation, and thus it still belongs under God's dominion.

Freedom note:  I used this passage in 2017 to launch a Reformation 500 series on the Freedom of a Christian.  I picked this passage because Jesus discusses that even those of us free in Christ still have responsibilities before other people.

Key words: 
παγις ("hunter's trap", used as a verb, 22.15) The word for ensnare comes from the root for trap. What a cruel image of the pharisees trying with metal jaws, to trap Jesus. 

Interestingly, by possessing a coin with the image of Caesar on them, one could argue the Jewish leaders here are already worshiping an idol.  This is especially true given the cult of the Emperor and the fact he was viewed as a god.  They were carrying around images of a foreign god!!  Furthermore, they set up a bogus system whereby you had to trade you Roman money for Jewish money to buy sacrifices.  Thus the temple profited from this exchange.  Jesus traps them as he reveals their sin and their entanglement with the Emperor.  Herod was a puppet king of Rome...but even the Pharisees benefit from the Roman tyranny because so often they are in places of power.   So Jesus is showing that they play in the Emperor's sandbox all the time. They want to trap him and in the end, they lay a trap for themselves.  Hence why they are hypocrites (see below!)

αποστελλω ("send" 22.16).  The literal phrase here is that his enemies "apostled their disciples," a reminder that Jesus is not the only one with apostles and disciples...

υποκριτης ("actor/hypocrite", 22.18) The word for hypocrite means actor, or one who plays a part.  (He answered above the others from stage.)  This is not necessarily a negative word, but in the NT it is used exclusively that way.  Jesus isn't interested in actors, but real people with real sins that need real forgiveness.  (In fact, the sentence before Luther famously asserts 'sin boldly', he says, "God did not die for fictitious sinners.")

εικον ("image/icon", 22:20) The word here for "head" or "portrait" here is literally "eikon," (icon!) which means image. So the question is whose image? If it is a human head, the answer could just as easily have been "God." (See Genesis 1!)  As Christians we must always seek to serve the creator behind the created governments of this world...yet while still acknowledging the reality of human government and laws!

τα του θεου ("the things of God," 22:21).  The word 'things' is implied here, for it literally reads, "these of the God."  This is straight-forward Greek grammar for which we don't have a literal translation into English.  Typically this kind of construction is translated "the things of X" Grammatically, it is worth asking -- what is the connection between "these things" and "God"?  "God" (θεου) is in the genitive case and this opens up many possibilities.  Do we give God back the things that come from God? The things that belong to God?  The things in this world which are for God?  The grammatical possibilities seem endless, underlying the more theological question:  What belongs to God? 

The best answer it seems, is from the Psalms:

• The earth is the LORD's and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it  Psalm 24:1

αποδιδημι ("render", 22:21)  This word is very common in Scripture, as it can also mean "give back."  Humans are often "giving back" or "returning" things to people throughout the Bible.  (Most comically, Paul commends husband and wives to "give it back" to each other.)  What about to God?  In 2023, I thought there may have been a pattern whereby this verb is used in conjunction with sacrifices of thanksgiving and confession of sin.  As it turns out, I don't think I was correct, but the verb is interesting nonetheless!

In the Psalms (and Ecclesiastes), we are called to pay back our vows to the Lord.  What is fascinating is the word underneath this verb payback is sh-l-m, which means to complete or make whole.  It literally is shalom.  This is fascinating to think about paying back as making complete or fulfill. What might it mean to fulfill what you owe to God?  

In the New Testament, the idea of paying back continues to have a sense of fulfilling or repaying someone what is owed or even deserved.  For example:

• Pay her back as she herself has paid back others, and repay her double for her deeds; mix a double portion for her bin the cup she mixed. Rev. 18:6
• Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.  Rom. 13:7
• And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ (Matthew 20:8)

In the Old Testament sense, this verse means "fulfill your obligations to Caesar and fulfill your obligations to the Lord."  In the New Testament sense, this verse means "Pay to Caesar what you him; pay to God what you owe God."  Slightly different -- still mulling it over!

Translation/Grammar review:  Idioms

"The things of God" is not the only idiomatic construction in this passage!

Some things in a language are simply impossible to translate literally.  This week Jesus is told, "You do not look into the face of people."  This doesn't sound so nice.  It simply means, "You don't look at exterior things."  (Which is a positive assessment).  He is also told he doesn't care about nothing.  Missing from this idiom is the word "opinion."  Jesus doesn't care about the opinions of others, in the sense that he acts free from petty judgments of others.  You could take them literally, and perhaps derive some meaning; that said, with idioms, it is often best to let professional translators do the work...

Matthew 22:1-14

This passage occurs in both the Narrative Lectionary (Year 1) and the Revised Common Lectionary (Most recently October 11, 2026).

Summary:  In 2023, the challenge of this parable hit home.

I wrote:  I am having a hard time with this passage this year.   As I update this post, Israel is engaged retaliation against the brutal attacks and kidnappings by Hamas.  Jews witnessed their own people slaughtered, even when they thought they were safe.  The abysmally poor in Gaza Strip will suffer as well as countless others in poverty.  This is classic tribal war along ethnic and religious lines, the kind that somehow we thought we had outgrown as a world.  When I combine this with the war in Ukraine and the political dysfunction in my own country that seems - on its worst days - to be leading us to internal civil war along tribal lines, I can do little else but lament.  And then I encounter in this parable a God who seems intent on revenge, focused on marker of tribe (clothing) and comfortable with exclusion and even cruelty.  Very tough to stomach."

Is there a glimmer of hope here?  Hmm...  This might be a passage I need to wrestle with some more, but the response of the King to the indifference and cruelty of the word is the following

- Purge it of evil

- Throw a party for everyone willing to come, including the bad and marginalized

- Deny entry to the self-righteous (see note on clothing below)

That is a party I can get behind.  But I am really wrestling with it all!  For those who are not struck by this reality a more standard way I might approach it:

In America, we typically spend a lot of effort getting the busy people to come to our church: the family with three kids and at least one parent who has a great job; the recently retired executive or teacher with copious amount of energy (and likely savings).  How much time do we spend inviting those on the margins?  More deeply, are we inviting people to one more activity or something that is the balm for the wounds? 

Key Words/Grammar insights:

καλεω (kaleo, "call" or "invite"; 22:3, 4, 8, 9 (14 as adjective)).  The word here for invited is simply the perfect of καλεω which means to call/invite. This word is used in various forms throughout the passage.  Jesus calls us to invite those willing to come because many of those invited were not interested.  A reminder that in all Gospels, but truly in Matthew, Jesus cares for people the world does not; the b-list people, so to speak.  The b-list people, you know, the beatitudes people!

τεθυμενα (tethymena, perfect participle of θυω, "slaughter" or "kill", 22:4).  This word can mean sacrificed.  If one were to go this route, then this parable could be interpreted within the paradigm of the conflict between Jews and early Jewish converts to Christianity:  Jesus has died (been sacrificed); many early Jews are not accepting him.  The temple is destroyed and that nation has fallen, perhaps as punishment for lack of conversion. A few other items that support this reading:

διεξοδος (literally "dia-exodus", meaning "crossroads" or "fork", 22:9)  This usually referred to the point where the roads from the country converged to the city.  (Thayer Dictionary, accessed via Accordance).  In this way, this can be seen as the movement of the church outside of its walls and likely into gentile territory.  He offers "the phrase figuratively represents the territory of heathen nations, into which the apostles were about to go forth"

εφιμωθη (aorist passive form of φιμοω, phimo-oo, "silence"; 22:12) Jesus will silence the Sadducees later this chapter (22:34).  This parable is not intended simply as a myth, but as a description, I would suggest, of how Jesus' was and is being received.

ενδυω/ενδυμα ("clothe" as verb; "clothing" as noun; 22:11, 12).  Matthew's Gospel talks about clothing a few times (more than any other Gospel, incidentally).  We learn that John the Baptist is clothed in Camel's hair (3:4); we learn not to worry about our clothing (6:25-28); we meet the angels wearing white (28:3).  Which leads to the question -- what should one wear to the heavenly banquet?

To get at this, I did a word search on ενδυω ("clothe/wear" to find examples of people wearing stuff in the New Testament, especially as it would relate to the heavenly banquet.  I've included them and underlined the word as the NRSV translates as ενδυω:

• 1 Corinthians 15:54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
• Romans 13:14 Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.
• Luke 24:49 And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."
• Matthew 27:31 After mocking him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.
• Ephesians 4:24 and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
• Ephesians 6:14 Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness.
• 1 Thessalonians 5:8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.
• Revelation 19:14 And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses.
• Galatians 3:27    As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

The only thing that can meet all of these criterion:  the gift of Jesus Christ in faith, love and righteousness, eternally pure and immortal yet also ready to die to the world, is our Baptism.  The question becomes, then, what might it mean to have the wrong clothing.  The text does not answer this question directly.  Perhaps it means to not be baptized?  Hmm.  I wonder if the wrong clothing means we come thinking that belong on our own and not in the clothing given to us by God.

What I also find interesting is that in the Gospels, we find out almost nothing about what Jesus wears.  We know his garments became white in the transfiguration.  Other than that we have to wait until the crucifixion to hear about his clothing...and then wait until Revelation for more. To put it another way, when it comes to Jesus, the only clothes that matter are his heavenly clothes!

υβριζω (hubrizoo (rough breathing over υ), meaning "mistreat"; 22:6)  The word for mistreat here is "hubriz-oo," literally, have hubris.

ὠργίσθη ("became angry", 22:8) God does have anger over human sin.

διακονοις (-ος, diakonos, meaning "attendant", 22:13)  I find it haunting that the "deacons" are sent into bind and cast out the wicked.  Typically we associate diaconal or deacon work with humble service to the poor.  Perhaps it is a reminder that purging the world of evil is a deacon's work too.  But very disturbing!

Grammar note with some theological reflection, verse 22:5
22:5 shows two ways that Greek can show possessive; 

εις τον ιδιον αργον   his field (literally, the field of his own)

επι την εμποριαν αυτου    and his business (genitive αυτου signifying 'his')

Both of which mean that that the people were into their own thing.  Quite a statement about why people don't engage with Christianity.

Matthew 21:33-46

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year A; Most recently October 4, 2026.

Summary
The meaning of the parable is clear:  Ancient Israel rejected prophets of old; they will reject and kill Jesus.  Somehow God will rebuild on the rejected Jesus.  How do we find a Gospel message relevant for people's lives?  While there is some interesting stuff in verse 34 about sending and bearing fruit, I sense myself drawn to verse 42 and the proclamation that God will rebuild on the rejected stone.  This verse points toward the faithfulness of God, who rebuilds on Christ.  I think we can apply this to people's lives: even through we again and again reject God's commands and even love in our lives, God rebuilds us on Christ.

For 2023, I added a tangent on institutional vs servant church leadership.

Key Words in verse 34 -- which sets up the whole thing
ηγγισεν (from εγγιζω, meaning "approach", 21:34)  This word, meaning "approach" or "come near", appears at turning points in the Gospel:
3:2  John Baptizes Jesus (John the Baptist say the Kingdom of Heaven is approaching/near)
4:17 Jesus begins ministry (Jesus says the KoH is approaching/near)
10:7 Jesus sends disciples (He instructs them to proclaim KoH is approaching/near)
21:1 Jesus is approaching/near Jerusalem
26:45/46  Jesus is betrayed (The hour is near/approaching)

Broad point:  Each time the Kingdom of Heaven is approaching, there is movement of Jesus and arguably a movement of the Spirit.  

Specific point:  The Lord of the Vineyard is doing something new when he sent his prophets and now when he is sending Jesus.

καιρος (kairos, meaning "season", 21:34; 41)  This word means 'season' or 'ideal time.'  In this case, it describes the harvest season.  A reminder that in Jesus there is the fullness of time!

απεστειλεν (from αποστελλω, meaning "send", 21:34)  I am amazed at how many times in Jesus' parables in Matthew we see (the character in the parables representing) God sending out people.  I think we often think of this as a concept in John's Gospels, but it is really crucial to Jesus' ministry.  We are sent out, certainly if and when the Kingdom of Heaven is approaching!  This word is important because it reminds us that the Kingdom of Heaven, while principally about the movement of Jesus into this world and toward the cross (see discussion on ηγγισεν), involves our movement too.

καρπος ("fruit", 21:34)  Again, we find a word that appears throughout scripture to describe the impact of the Spirit and the Kingdom of Heaven in our life:  We bear fruit.  In this case, workers are sent to gather the fruit.  What a beautiful image of ministry -- gathering the fruit that God has already created.  As the word αυτου ("of him") remind us, the fruit belongs to God.

Other interesting words

οικοδεσποτης  (literally, oikos - despot, meaning "owner of the land", 21:33)  This is a fun word in Greek.  It is built on two smaller words that we can recognize: oikos and despot!  It is interesting that Jesus would refer to God as an οικοδεσποτης, which was unlikely a favorable comparison for working-class listeners.  It is a reminder that first, these are parables and not allegories; second, it all belongs to God.

αμπελωνα ("vineyard", 21:33)  Jesus tells three vineyard parables, almost right in a row.  This seems clearly the one built the most on Isaiah 5, in which the vineyard owner builds a tower, as this vineyard owner does here as well.  It is a sermon series by Jesus :-)  It shows us how good stories and metaphors work, they continue to unfold in new ways.  It reminds us of Jesus' creative genius to somehow use old wine skins!

ἀποκτείνω ("kill", 21:35) Just a reminder that life and death are at stake in the ministry of Jesus.  Sometimes in Matthew's Gospel the language seems too harsh for me, but Jesus reminds us here that the stuff that is most important is at stake.  The Kingdom of God is not a second tier matter.

υστερον (meaning "last," 21:37)  The word here for "last" is used 4 times in Matthew 21 and 22; and also in Matt 25 and 26, but rarely ever appears elsewhere in the NT...Matthew is starting to emphasize the final nature of things and of his Gospel.

εντραπησονται  (future passive of εντρεπω, "respect", 21:37)  The word for "respect" means more like embarrass...in short, they will be embarrassed enough to show respect.  In the rest of the New Testament, it is always used within a context of shame rather than respect.  Perhaps this is a reminder that within an honor/shame culture, 'respect' has a different meaning; perhaps it is a reminder that Jesus ends up shaming the pharisees and religious leaders.  Ironically their attempts at shaming Jesus (killing him outside of Jerusalem) only lead to his glory!

οικοδομεω (meaning "build" "erect" or even "rebuild", 21:33 and 21:42)  The word here for builder is the same as in vs. 33. God built something.  People messed it up.  God will rebuild.  God is always at work revising the mistakes of our bad construction, relaying the foundation of our lives on Christ that we may bear fruit!

εθνει (ethnos, meaning "gentiles", 21:43)  The word for "people" here is "Gentiles."  Interestingly, Paul will talk about how he has a harvest of Gentiles in Romans 1:13, a case where Scripture is fulfilling itself!

Institution vs Servant Church

In verse 45, the religious leaders recognize this parable is directed at them.  As tenants of the vineyard, they have killed the servants sent by God.  I see this parable as a reminder of the way in which the institution of the church has again and again chewed up prophets and the servants of God.  In this way the parable serves as a judgment on institutional Christianity as well and the ways in which we devour prophets among us.  Those who come with a servants heart, beware!  However, in the end of the parable, Jesus says that there will be new tenants.  There will always be an institutional church...that always abused the pure in heart and always needs reformation. 

Church history reveals this too -- where the small and forgotten folks on the margins get forgotten, if not excluded.  They form a movement.  Which becomes a church.  Which gets too institutional.  Which then needs reform...or more likely kicks out the people that will grow the next generation of the church.

Philippians 3:3b-14

This passage occurs as a New Testament Lesson in the RCL "Pentecost"/"Ordinary"/"Proper" Season, Year A, most recently October 2026.

Summary:  In certain theological circles I often find that justification is the aim; yet for Paul in this passage justification has a purpose.  As the Greek indicates, it has a purpose, namely that we would know Christ, his resurrection and his suffering.  Rather than claim this is something other than good Lutheran doctrine, Luther and countless other Lutherans have seen justification has the key to the kingdom, but not the kingdom itself, which is Christ.

Key Words
σαρξ ("flesh" 3:4 and elsewhere)  Normally we think that Paul sees the flesh as an entirely evil entity.  In this case Paul talks about his righteousness in the law (and therefore the flesh).  He never says that his Jewish upbringing was evil.  In fact, Paul's whole take on flesh and law provides more a productive evangelical tact than the normal torpedo attack on human sinfulness.  Simply acknowledge that people have seen and accomplished great things, yet they still often sense a worthlessness about themselves and are haunted by a sense that something greater exists.  To reiterate, Paul is not claiming the flesh is evil, but he is clearly affirming its limits.

ζημια ("loss" or "damage"; found as noun and verb 3:7 and 3:8)  Interestingly, Paul calls his accomplishments a loss.  The Greek here is a bit stronger in that it can also mean "damage" or "penalty."  Paul here lays the groundwork for a later group of Lutheran orthodox thinkers who argued that good works are damaging to salvation.  While I don't like admitting this, I can see both Paul's and the orthodox thinker's point here that human achievement can cloud our vision from seeing Christ's blessings.
side note:  Paul here echoes back to 2:5 and 2:6 in the Christ hymn; Christ did not regard (ηγεομαι) equality with God as something to be exploited. Here Paul is saying he regards all of his benefits as loss through Christ.

συμμορφιζομενος ("together-shaped", 3:10; noun form in 3:21).  I believe this is a crucial word to understanding Paul's letter to the Philippians.  Paul writes that Jesus was in the shape (μορφη) as God, but chooses a different shape, one of a slave, for our sake.  However, for Paul this does not mean the Christian can avoid death  No, Paul believes that we to will be transformed by Christ, in that we will receive the same shape as him -- a crucified slave, so that ultimately, we might receive a resurrected body like his.  This is also found in Romans 3:17 - co-inheritors, co-sufferers, co-will be glorified-ers.  I would argue that chapter 3 of Paul's letter to the Philippians is applying the Christ him of suffering and glory to the Christian.  

διωκω ("pursue"; 3.6, 3.12 and 3.14):   Paul's bragging here has a double rhetorical effect -- he will return to the words "pursue" (διωκω) and "righteousness" (δικαιοσυνη) later in this section (3.9, 12 and 14).

σκυβαλα ("crap"; 3:8)  Rubbish is about as nice as you can translate this.  Paul wants a rhetorical effect here. 

καταλαμβανω ("receive, obtain, overcome"; 3:12,13)  This verb presents a problem in most cases for the translator because it has a broad array of meanings.  In this case, the challenge is in the tenses.  In verse 12 Paul claims that he has been obtained (aorist passive) by Christ; yet he also says in the aorist subjunctive that might obtain it; finally, in the perfect active he says he has not obtained it.  Here is Paul at his grammatical worst and perhaps theological best: The event of Christ's death and resurrection obtained Paul for Christ, but this process is not finished!

επιλανθανομαι ("forget"; in participle form in 3:13).  Most important is not the participle form, but the present tense.  Both verbs in the second half (forgetting and looking ahead) in the present tense, suggesting this is an on-going process of doing this. We cannot simply forget once, but must continually forget.

Grammar review & theological commentary on verses 3:9-10
Infinitive purpose clauses  In Greek, the infinitive can be used to express purpose, especially when it is an "articular infinitive."  (ie, article + infinitive)  In verse 9 Paul discusses justification by faith.  He begins verse 10 (which the Greek scribes connect with a comma to the previous verse, not a period) with the "articular infinitive":  του γνωναι (the knowing).  Paul's use of an infinitive here suggests that justification's purpose is to know God, the power of the resurrection and the fellowship of suffering. In other words, 9 and 10 are linguistically linked by Paul and a strong possible reading is purpose...vs 9 (justification) is for the purpose of vs 10 (resurrection).  To build on last's weeks passage about μορφη (shape), justification leads to transformation as our "morph" becomes like Christ.