Matthew 20:20-28

“Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling down she asked him for a favor. He said to her, “What do you want?” She replied, “Permit these two sons of mine to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” Jesus answered, “You don’t know what you are asking! Are you able to drink the cup I am about to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” He told them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right and at my left is not mine to give. Rather, it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” Now when the other ten heard this, they were angry with the two brothers. But Jesus called them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles Lord it over them, and those in high positions use their authority over them. It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.””

— ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭20‬:‭20‬-‭28‬‬

 Parallel passage in Mark has James and John coming directly to Jesus, but we can ascribe the difference to gospel genre. The plural pronoun “you” in Jesus’ response shows that He knows this question originates with them. Having a mediator doesn’t change that. This is not the same thing as inserting their mother into Mark’s account. Still need to accept the difference and see how each gospel is using their details. Need to research either the shame or honor or desperation that’s demonstrated here by having mother do the asking. 

What’s more important is that in both Matthew and Mark, this question comes after an announcement of Jesus’ death. The disciples simply don’t understand Jesus’ mission. They are hyper-focused on the affairs, systems, and methods of the world. They may slowly be learning from Jesus, but three years in—still seeking power, glory, and honor. We can find comfort in this—discipleship is a journey, and even they had failures. At the same time, we can learn from this, like every day. And the applications never end.

Drinking the cup—share in Christ’s sufferings. They would die for the mission of Jesus. James was one of the first martyrs in Acts. John (tradition) attempted to be killed, then exiled. Only the Father could give places of honor. Paul will say we are all co-heirs with Jesus. Unsure what other “seats” there actually are. Good place to search would be extra-biblical Jewish literature to see what they believed about places of honor in the future kingdom.

Of course, the rest of the disciples are angry with them. (Probably because they wanted the places of honor for themselves. “Why didn’t I think of asking Jesus that first?”) It’s not like they haven’t argued about who’s the greatest, shunned children from Jesus, sent away other disciples.

Jesus makes it plain as day. The rulers of Gentiles (ouch) use authority, might, power to take advantage of people, work up the ladder, abuse, harm, etc. And sometimes it’s masked as leadership. It cannot be this way among followers of Jesus. Obviously, it has happened millions of times throughout history, and it occurs every day. God, help us.

The way of Jesus is humility. The way of “victory” is surrender and service. The greatest person is a servant. Probably has no followers on social or likes or 500 members in church. Just faithful, humble servant who enjoys helping others. 

Jesus did not come to be served—insane, if we understood Him as God in flesh. He has the highest claim to honor and worship. 

Ransom: Word is a marketplace term for buying back something, specifically a slave. NT has a bunch of metaphors for how salvation works. They’re word pictures, and yet we still say they reflect reality as well. Still working through atonement and how Jesus’ death affected salvation for people. 

Ransom theory of atonement often says Jesus paid the price to Satan (see Lion, Witch, Wardrobe). Most consider this heresy, since Satan has no claim to souls and doesn’t make the rules. Paying the price to God would be buying back people from God for God???

NET simply says this speaks of Jesus paying the price we owed, acting as a substitute, etc. There’s got to be more to that, and these terms are only helpful in the larger narrative. No event is so simple, yet so complex and confusing as the atonement/crucifixion. 

Yet, it is the ultimate example of sacrifice. There’s more to it in this passage but that is a key takeaway considering the initial request.

Romans 3:21-31

 “But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of works? No, but by the principle of faith! For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too! Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead we uphold the law.”

— ‭‭Romans‬ ‭3‬:‭21‬-‭31‬‬

This is major passage for New Perspective on Paul. (And key passage for Romans in general.) 

Debate is whether “salvation” in Romans focuses on individual or more ethnic approach. Since Reformation at least, it’s been more individual. NPP argues at least emphasis is more ethnic/national approach (but not necessarily neglecting individual. 

Nevertheless, in 1:18-3:20, Paul has condemned all people(s). To give good news, Paul has demonstrated how God is completely holy and needs to show how He can accept sinners. But there’s also debate on meaning of “righteousness.” 

Will add later blog later on this. Also debate on “faith in Jesus” vs. “faithfulness of Jesus.” No evidence is concrete, but it may lean slightly toward the latter. Then the object of our faith is proven worthy of of our faith because He himself is faithful.

“All have sinned…” vv. 23 and following are actually one long sentence, including some participles (e.g., being justified), so the “all” that begins v. 23 refers to believers in this context. Otherwise, Paul would be preaching universalism. 

Fall short of the glory of God is probably a reference back to 1:21 where humans fails to glorify God. 

Justification typically refers to a declaration by God that the sinner is righteous. Cf Exod 23:7; Isa 5:22-23 for similar language. God does not justify for a bribe. He justifies freely. 

VV 24-26. Most atonement language uses metaphor, and ransom is another. Many writings about ransom in Greek literature involve price, but other times, even in LXX (Dan 4:34) focus on liberation or deliverance. Here, though a price may be mentioned in Jesus’ blood, the emphasis is on the liberation. 

Mercy seat vs. expiation vs. propitiation. The term could be any of these, but the NET has translated as the mercy seat, the actual place where atonement was made in the OT. Only other place the term is used is Heb 9:5. Propitiation is the satisfying of wrath. Expiation is taking away sin. Mercy seat is the place where all of this occurred. 

In his blood provides a mixed metaphor, because Jesus is now the place of the sacrifice and the sacrifice. 

The main point of this passage is to defend God’s righteousness. He places Jesus forth so that He is able to accept sinners as sons and daughters. There is so much work done on the atonement and what exactly happened. So many theories. I’m currently working through it and rethinking some things. Passages like this are very difficult. Wrath of God and sacrifice of Jesus confused a lot of people. How does this relate to the gift of God and the conquering of death and evil?

VV 27-31 come back or continue the ethnic or corporate salvation themes. All nations come to faith through Jesus, not the Jewish distinctive found in the law or their traditions. Rom 2 is key for condemning Jewish traditions and law keeping. Jews didn’t necessarily think of YHWH as their exclusive God. Paul may be using common theology with his audience to advance his argument.

How do we establish the law? Christ’s faithfulness fulfilled law (just had whole section on that) This vindicates God’s justification and holiness/righteousness. As we follow and abide in Christ, we gain new life. Faith does not prove the law wrong but points us to live the way God intended. Galatians will say we fulfill the law of love.