Other bloggers

One of my morning rituals - usually done before breakfast but after I've collected the overnight emails - is to trawl through a collection of mainly New Testament blogs (yes, I know I should get out more, but it's early!)

The one that I've found most stimulating over recent weeks is Michael Bird and Joel Willetts' Euanggelion. you can access it here

Today Michael bird is recommending Scott McKnight's book on the atonement but adding his own reflection on why it matters what we think about this central doctrine of the Christian faith.

So, if you want some stimulation, check it out.

And a great time was had by all...

Well, yesterday went rather well, I think...

120+ turned up in the afternoon to hear the African Kidzsing choir (who were wonderful) and then stayed on to eat and find out about Fruto del Espirtu's gorgeous range of fruit juices (and the vision behind the company). A good number stayed on - and more joined them - to hear Gareth Davies-Jones sing songs from his new album, as well s some old favourites.

Everyone went away entertained, provoked and challenged - which is what church should like, isn't it?

It was a great last Sunday before sabbatical for me - seeing the church full and humming with conversation, visitors and regulars mingling and everyone being enabled to support movements that could make the world a bit better. I can't ask for more than that really...

End of the journey, start of the adventure...

We're looking forward to a busy day at church.

This afternoon and evening we have a festival of the nations, featuring the Kidzsing choir from Johannesburg, an innovative project called Fruto del Espiritu which is seeking to help Colombian farmers grow fruit for fruit juice rather than coca for cocaine (they've got a contract to supply fruit cocktails to the Dorchester Hotel no less) and Gareth Davies-Jones is rounding our evening off with songs from his new album, Water and Light. Oh and there'll be food.

And this morning - my last before going on sabbatical - I am rounding off Matthew by returning to 28:16-20 (where we started) and looking at what we've learned about being and making disciples as we've read the five discourses.

I shall be stressing that disciples are believers with L-plates who pass on to others what they're discovering about the life of faith. There should be something of the wide-eyed, 'wow, look what I've just found out about Jesus' about our evangelism.

Paul captures it in Philippians 3 where he talks about wanting to know Jesus (v10), pressing on to grasp more and more about him and at the same time planting churches and urging others to discover the Christ who'd revolutionised his life and promised to do the same for the world.

So, although we've reached the end of our journey through Matthew, in a very real the adventure with Jesus in the world is just beginning - as it was for the 11 who met him on the mountain. Will we worship or hesitate, offer our lives to his adventure of mission or shrink back into the safety of our church programme?

And then it's getting ready for the Baptist Assembly in Blackpool at the end of the week. After that, we're off to Prague for a month to stay at IBTS. I'm really looking forward to time away, recharging the batteries, reflecting on where I'm at and thinking about what God is saying about the next phase of my ministry. We're certain that it means staying put, that God has fresh challenges for us here. we're looking forward to being re-envisioned for the adventure.

I shall be blogging while away, I think., because there'll be tons of stuff to reflect on and express an opinion about while we're away. So, keep in touch...

Further thoughts on sheep and goats

We had a great conversation over coffee at our local chic cafe this morning about the gospel, assurance of salvation, what we believe and how we live - all issues touching on Matthew 25.

One of the things I came away more certain about is that the issue of faith and lifestyle is a tension that we resolve at our peril - and certainly at some risk to our theology.

We are saved by faith and judged by works - is that the argument of Romans 2? What we do is evidence of the reality of our faith - is that the argument of James 2? As we await the coming king in whom we have put our trust we will live lives built on and reflective of his values - is that what Matthew 25 is about?

[I think the answer to all these questions is 'yes and...']

I guess something else I've thought about since Sunday - and yet another person this morning told me how challenging they found what I'd said on Sunday morning - is that it's no one's job but God's to decide who's a goat and who's a sheep. The trouble is that we are always comparing ourselves with others and, depending on our temperament, reckoning ourselves better or worse than them.

We really should only compare to Jesus, commit ourselves to following him whatever (much like Paul in Philippians 3) and trusting him to enable us to live up to his call. By his grace we'll not go far wrong if we live this way.

Listen while you work...

As well as Yeasayer - who are fab (see previous post) - I've also been listening to the new REM album (undoubtedly the best work they've done since New Adventures in Hi Fi; lots of angular, industrial guitar sounds and stipe sounds like he's interested in what he's singing again) and the new offering from Delirious?

I'm not sure what I think of delirious? This album grows out of a visit to India and the lyrics seem more grown up than previous work. The packaging, however, suggests that style and art are triumphing over concern for the global poor - tons of plastic and an awkward sized lyric book. They ought to have taken a leaf out of Radiohead's book; the album sleeve for In rainbows is all cardboard.

As to the music, Kingdom of comfort is a good opener and the guitar at the start of God is Smiling is sublime. There are a number of tracks that will end up as firm favourites at churches and conferences up and down the land. But I don't feel I've learned anything about India or what the band made of their experience, except that they felt uncomfortable.

Oh, and the live Cinematic Orchestra album gets better with every listen.

So, listen while you work...

Getting the message out

Well, I duly preached on Matthew 25 and no one threw anything (which I always take as a positive sign).

It did lead to some interesting conversations afterwards. One or two wanted assurance that what they'd been taught in the past is right and they'll be okay on the Day of Judgement. The trouble with this is that I don't know what they've been taught and it's not up to me whether they'll be ok on the day of judgement!

I think people tend to be either hopelessly insecure on this issue and assume they're a goat or arrogantly confident of their status as a sheep. I suspect the last shall be first on this one! The former are probably much more in touch with the values of the Kingdom than the latter who come dangerously close to exhibiting all the hallmarks of a caricature pharisee (don't we all on many occasions?!)

Next week I'll be rounding off our series on the discourses in Matthew by returning to 28:16-20 (where we started last Autumn) and asking what a disciple should know so they can pass it on as they go into the world (that is, each time they leave their home).

It seems to me that it's more about how to live (as Jesus did) than about a set of doctrines to talk about. This means that as we go into the world our lives attract a certain amount of interest because of the values we live by. That interest is our opportunity to talk about the Jesus of those values and all that he means to us as brother, friend, saviour and Lord.

But I'm getting ahead of myself (I haven't started thinking about next week yet!)

This is my last full week before going on sabbatical. I'm ready for it but I realised at the church family meeting and lunch yesterday that I'm really going to miss everyone. I realised even more at the end of our later service when people who won't be around next week, were saying goodbye to me.

I have to say that I am really enjoying the Yeasayer album - All Hour Cymbals - which is a studiedly weird as the title and utterly breathtaking. There's not a duff note on it - though I haven't yet fathomed out what any of it is about.

Struggling with difficult texts

I have been wrestling with Matthew 25:31-46 ahead of preaching on it on Sunday and am wondering whether I might have found a key that helps to unlock it. Of course, I might have stumbled into some ancient heresy - in which case, I repent immediately!

Any of you with any wisdom on this, please comment on what follows.

The story (it's not a parable) is puzzling for a couple of reasons. The first is that Jesus seems to be suggesting that the sole basis for judging everyone from every nation is how they've each treated his followers ('the least of these my brothers and sisters' used elsewhere in Matthew to talk about disciples). There is nothing about faith or living a personally righteous life.

And the second is that both the sheep and the goats are surprised by the criterion for judgement or at least they are surprised by the fact that Jesus says they haven't recognised him in the people in need around them.

The embarrassment of this story, of course, is that it seems to suggest salvation by works; that we are judged solely according to what we do rather than what we believe.

So, here's a thought. Is Jesus (or Matthew) going full circle and ending the final discourse of the gospel with reference to the first one (namely the sermon on the mount)? Is mention of the least of these an oblique reference to the poor, hungry, shattered of the beatitudes? Possibly.

Rather more likely and interesting (I think) is the following thought. Could this whole judgement scene be an outworking of 7:21-23 where Jesus distinguishes between those who claim to be disciples - some he knows and some he doesn't. There he only says that not everyone who calls me Lord, but only those who do the will of my Father will enter the Kingdom. Is he here spelling out what that's all about?

After all, he has echoed those words in 25:12 where half the young women seeking entry to the wedding banquet are sent away with the words 'I don't know you' ringing int their ears.

From 24:36 Jesus has been telling his followers that his parousia will arrive suddenly and unexpectedly and so they should they should always be ready. This readiness is not a hanging about in the hallway with our bags packed, but an active waiting on the king and working for his kingdom as spelled out the three parables from 24:45-25:30.

Is this judgement scene the final teaching on what it means to be ready, a final spelling out that judgement is based on how we live as well as what we believe? Is Jesus reminding us that not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom, but only those who who do the will of my father spelled out in the terms of this story. Is Jesus here stressing to his followers that the quality of their lives in the world, where they support and look out for one another and the poor of their communities (Galatians 6:10 in action) is the single sign that he is the one to whom the world will give account and that he is returning at a time no one knows, so everyone had better ask themselves whether they are ready?

The criterion for judgement seems to be a conscious echo of the description of Jesus' ministry in 9:35-38 and 11:4-6 and thus a call for us as followers of the coming king to be living as the king lived, caring for those in need and thus demonstrating the grace of God to all.

And all this might help us to integrate the picture of the relationship between faith and works in Matthew 25 with the ones we find in Romans 2:6-11 and James 2:14-24 where there is a similar emphasis on what we do as well as what we believe, with the former having a judgement setting.

Am I mad or does this make some sense?

Taking a city break in Ancient Rome

Yesterday I was put through my paces by my supervisor. He seemed pretty pleased with the direction of my paper, though suggested that I might like to pay closer attention to the primary sources rather than the secondary ones.

Now I am going to do some detailed investigation of life in the cities of the ancient world, in particular Rome, Philippi, Corinth, Antioch and Ephesus (those places that the Jesus movement took root in and which became significant centres of mission and and developing organisation and ministry).

My focus is on the question of where the earliest communities gathered. The prevailing view is that congregations of 30-ish met in homes that were inhabited by and thus organised as a household. This explains the presence of household codes in the NT and Apostolic Fathers and could account for the forms of leadership that emerged over the first three generations. But this consensus is being challenged by some.

What if the earliest communities met somewhere else because the bulk of members lived in insulae, above workshops, in temporary accommodation near where they picked up seasonal employment? Where would such groups meet and what kind of leadership might emerge in them?

Anyone with any suggestions of where I might look, please let me know. I'm looking forward to getting stuck into this especially when I'm away in May at IBTS (good library and convivial surroundings) with a view to getting something on paper for a meeting at the end of July.

The soundtrack for today's reading and preparation will be the new Cinematic Orchestra live at the Albert Hall album (truly gorgeous) and the remarkable album by Yeasayer. Called All Hour Cymbals, it's a wonderful mix of quirky rhythms, great tunes and opaque lyrics - somewhat resonant of early Talking Heads.

Tidying up

I finished my paper at the weekend - The Matrix of Leadership: location, social order and authority in early Christianity. (slight title change!)

It's a bit long (7,200 words) but I'm quite pleased with it. In the end, the ideas flowed and I think I made a reasonable case that leadership in the Jesus movement in the second century was just as fluid as leadership in the first; and that just because certain letter writers expressed views about how it should be, that isn't necessarily how it was.

In particular, I explored the issue of social location (what kind of people joined the church) and asked how that might have affected the ways the movement was led in the first three generations.

I really enjoyed interacting with Polycarp - what a lovely gentle letter!

A footnote to my last post: Yes, Tom Wright did talk about jubilee. He argued strongly that Jesus was declaring jubilee when he preached in Nazareth and that is why he is good news for the poor. The jubilee is physical and economic and the proclamation of the Kingdom includes our mentioning and modelling it to the world.

I agree with Lynn, though, it would be a good investment to buy the CD of the talk. It's also available as a DVD but probably isn't that riveting as Tom didn't dance while he spoke!

The (W)right stuff at Spring Harvest

Back from Spring Harvest - so cream crackered that I can barely focus!

We had an excellent, very busy week. The highlight was hearing Tom Wright (yes, that's right, the Bishop of Durham, no less) expounding the Nazareth sermon of Luke 4 in the light of its Isaianic background and fulfilment in the Acts of the Apostles ('a very buzzy book'), all focused on the Kingdom of God. It was utterly blistering!

The amazing thing was that as he came into land - and I was wondering for at least two thirds of it, how he was going to apply all this to his audience - you could sense a sudden in-take of breath all over the big top as people realised that this was about them. We all have Nazareth's in which we're called to proclaim the Kingdom of God; in some of them we'll be thrown off the cliffs by the antagonistic; are we up for it? More important, do we know the message and are we filled with the Spirit of the messenger? Amazing!

The response was big. I prayed with three or four people, two of whom were ministers going back to really difficult situations who had found Tom's message nurturing and nourishing and wanted strength for the fray.

That's why I love being on the pastoral team at Spring Harvest.

Elsewhere, I did a seminar on self-esteem that seemed to go really well - 200+ turned up for it and lots stayed around to chat afterwards. And on the final evening Jeff Lucas was the best I've ever heard him - funny, theologically deep and sharp in terms of application.

It was great to work with a group of people that Linda and I have worked with for the past six or seven years. We laugh and cry together in roughly equal measure - though a good deal of the crying is tears of laughter! We'll do it all again next year, I hope.

Now it's back to papers and emails and catching up with what's been happening here.

Emerging churches - second century-style

Today I am trying to get a structure for a paper for my supervisor on leadership in the New Testament and immediate post-apostolic period. I've narrowed it down to looking at Rome and Philippi and trying to trace the trajectories of leadership development as those communities matured.

I think I'll call my paper The matrix of leadership: location, social order and authority in Rome and Philippi because that sounds suitably impressive (even if it masks the fact that I might not have anything intelligent to say!) and does touch on all the issues I think I want to address (albeit at a fairly superficial level).

I'm particularly interested in teasing out the evidence for the so-called three-fold ministry - bishops, deacons and presbyters - and reasons why it appeared/is appearing. And I am especially keen to see if there's any evidence for the assertion that the church was already moving out of homes into larger buildings and that many communities in a city were becoming one led by a singly bishop, assisted by presbyters and deacons.

We have good evidence for Rome because of literature having been left to us that was written from the city - namely 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas. It seems that these two documents reflect different Roman Christian communities, thus suggesting that multiple churches were not at this time (the turn of the second century) becoming a single church with a unitary leadership.

Sadly we don't have similar evidence for Philippi - that I can find anyway - but we do have two letters: Paul's from the mid-50s and Polycarp's from the first third of the second century. A lot of good research has been done on what the Christian communities were like in Philippi when Paul wrote but sadly nothing like that wealth of information exists for the church/churches that Polycarp wrote to 80-ish years later.

What we do find across the second century literature, however, is considerable difference of opinion over how churches should be organised and what authority church leaders had. Teasing out the reasons why this was the case looks as though it's going to be quite interesting.

I'm hoping to get the structure done and map out the argument for each section ahead of going away. Because we're off to Spring Harvest in the morning. Five days in Skegness just as the winter returns - great!

But we're looking forward to meeting up with old mates and working with a whole range of people on the pastoral team. I'm also doing a seminar on self-esteem (though I'm not sure I'm good enough to be doing that, really...)

And inbetween all that, I'll be doing bits and pieces of writing with a view to editing it when I'm back and getting it off to my supervisor before we meet in a couple of week's time.

Gearing up for getting away

We had a good day yesterday. Another dedication in the morning which swelled the congregation. Sunday Break was really well attended and the Later Service had good numbers, despite a number of regulars being away.

I preached okay as well. In the morning several people asked me - in response to what I said about Matthew 24:40-41 - what about the rapture? To which I said, 'what about it?' or words to that effect. I politely clarified that I don't believe in it and that it certainly isn't taught in Matthew 24 - quite the opposite, in fact (see last post).

This morning I've had a number of meetings to talk through arrangements for my forthcoming sabbatical - bring it on....!

Linda and I are going to Prague for month in May after the Baptist assembly and then hopefully to France for a couple of weeks in June. Sabbaticals ought to be about rest, refreshment, relaxation, recharging the batteries - and that's what I'm doing for the bulk of mine.

In Prague, we're staying at IBTS and I will be making use of the library to do some research on early church history and continue getting some focus to my studies. This week, I'm writing a paper on leadership ahead of a meeting with my supervisor in a couple of weeks. It's fascinating, though really difficult to keep all the issues in my mind as I create my argument. Hopefully, what comes out at the end of the week will make sense enough. I'll edit and refine it while I'm at spring Harvest.

I've been listening to Larry Norman of late and rediscovered his fabulous Nightmare #71 off what I think is possibly his best album, So Long Ago the Garden (which was part-produced by the great george Martin). It's a wonderful dylanesque song with really contemporary resonances. For instance:

we've paved the forest
killed the streams
burned the bridges
to our dreams
the earth is bursting
at the seams
and in the pain of
childbirth screams
as it gives life
to what seems
to either be
an age that gleams
or simply lays there dying
if this goes on
will life survive
how can it
out of the grave
O who will save
our planet?

Good question - one we might be addressing at the Baptist Assembly

New light on familiar texts

I always get caught out by weeks with Bank Holidays in them - they're shorter than average weeks!

the trouble is I never seem to take that into account when diary planning. So my week thus far has been pretty full-on, but also surprisingly enjoyable.

I've been looking at the next section of the eschatological discourse in Matthew this afternoon. I'll be preaching on 24:36-51 on Sunday where Jesus shifts our focus away from the overthrow of the temple to his return.

As ever I have found Dick France's commentary to be absolutely first rate. He writes beautifully, his exegesis is easy to follow and his conclusions always soundly based. I was particularly struck by his take on the classic 'rapture' text in v40-41. Having grown up with Larry Norman singing a version of these words in I wish we'd all been ready, I thought I knew what they were about (and I didn't really like it!)

Dick invites us to ask what these people are being taken for? After all, just a verse earlier people were being taken unexpectedly by a flood. That clearly was not a good thing. So Dick argues here that these people are being taken to judgement; unexpectedly, out-of-the-blue, unprepared, they are swept away to face their maker and account for their lives.

The rapture doesn't sound so cool now, does it?

I love it when new light is cast on familiar and troubling texts by the cool head of a master scholar. What this does is to sort out the flow of the discourse for me. Jesus is talking about his unexpected return by using three pictures of sudden events - floods, burglaries and the return of a master from his travels. None of these events can be predicted with any accuracy; they come upon us when we're looking the other way.

So it will be with the return of Jesus. The question these verses ask of us is simple: will we be doing what we should be when he comes or will we have slipped round the back of the bike sheds for a sly fag?

Tomorrow I'm off to Didcot, home of the Baptist Union and BMS World Mission, hoping to get a number of papers tackling Clement's view of church leadership read and noted on the way there and back.

The passion's fitting climax

We watched the final episode of the Passion on the BBC in church last night as part of our special later guest service.

Someone asked before we started whether we'd pull it if the programme veered off into heresy. We said 'no' (though we were a little nervous!).

No one need have worried. I thought it was a stunning and deeply moving climax to an intriguing series. There was no doubt that Jesus physically rose from the dead and that the disciples knew it.

For me the scene at Emmaus was wonderfully done. I thought the idea of casting a different actor to play the risen Jesus was a master-stroke, introducing that element of doubt into the disciples' and Mary's minds when he first appeared. I thought it was a wonderful and moving moment when he changed back into Joseph Mawle as he shared the bread and wine.

Even the final scene at the pool of Siloam was very effective. I know it moved the location of Jesus' encounter with Peter from beach in Galilee and I know it moved the Great Commission location from the hills of Galilee to Jerusalem. But it was incredibly moving seeing on Peter's face the look of recognition, the fact that he'd got who Jesus was and what he was about and was ready to do it and tell everyone about it.

If Christians can't use this season finale to talk to their colleagues around the water cooler about who Jesus is, then we're in trouble.

Well done BBC, the Passion was not without its faults but overall it was a splendid, gritty representation of the events of that first Easter.

Happy easter

Easter day! The tomb is still empty; Jesus is risen. Hallelujah!

Two Resurrection thoughts for you:

'The words 'it was credited to him' [Abraham] were written not for him alone; but also for us, to whom God is credit righteousness - for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.' (Romans 4:22-25).

'Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labour in the Lord is not in vain.' (1 Corinthians 15:58)

Happy Easter everyone!

Please, Mr preacher, can I ask a question?

Spent a really quality couple of hours with a woman who in her eighties has experienced a renewal of faith over the past six months. We meet every other week or so to talk through issues and read the Bible together. It's wonderful to see how she has come alive.

We always end up talking about how things are going at church and this afternoon we got on to the subject of sermons. She likes my sermons but wonders if there's too much in them - 'such a lot to digest,' she says - and would like the opportunity to ask questions as and when they arise - 'would you mind being interrupted?' she asked.

My initial response - and I think it's my considered response too - is that I'd love to be interrupted. I'd love the sermon to be more of a dialogue rather than a monologue. In my previous church in the evening service, I'd preach and then we'd have feedback and questions. It was based on the principle Cromwell apparently used when allowing chaplains to be attached to regiments of the New Model Army in the English Civil War. He said they could preach for as long as they liked providing they subjected themselves to questioning by the troops for the same length of time. Good principle.

As we chatted, one idea that emerged was to preach a single sermon over three Sundays - i.e. each sermon would have a third of the content that they have now - which would allow for there to be interaction during the preaching and after it.

There are all sorts of logistical issues - can you do it in a gathering of 250-300? what happens if you miss one of the parts of the sermon because you don't come every week? how do you ensure that the loudest voices don't dominate the question time?

But there could be all kinds of benefits. One of the things I'm keen to explore is not how we create teaching programmes - I think we're quite good at that - but how do we ensure learning outcomes? More dialogue, questions being asked there and then, indicates what people know, what their concerns are and what they are learning from the current teaching programme.

I think we can try this in our later service - there's already quite a bit of dialogue there anyway. I wonder if we can contemplate it for our other gatherings.

Thumbs up to the beeb's Passion

I watched the first episode of the The Passion over lunch today (on BBC iPlayer) and overall I was really quite impressed.

I thought it was a bit hesitant to begin with, took a while to find its feet. But once it had, it had a lot going for it.

I think the characterisations of Pilate and Caiaphas are excellent - rounded, believable people you can feel real sympathy for even if you don't like them. The street scenes are suitably sweaty and noisy. Jerusalem feels edgy and likely to blow up any time.

Jesus comes into this with a rag-tag of followers and hangers-on and quietly makes his presence felt. Joseph Mawle brings a sly humour to the role that feels entirely appropriate. The scene of him 'teaching' in the temple while he walked around that includes the parable of the wicked tenants was particularly effective.

Effective too is that as the episode unfolded, it was Jesus, the one with no power, who was driving the drama; those with political power were having to play catch-up and react to his agenda. This means that there is real tension in the narrative - even though we all know what's going to happen.

Less good, I feel, is his diffidence about what he stands for. The triumphal entry was good with all the right references to Zechariah but Jesus doesn't seem to be certain why he's come. And, annoyingly, he twice told people that 'the Kingdom of God is inside you' (a minor saying from Luke's Gospel that would be better rendered 'the Kingdom of God is among you'). And the scene with his mother was slightly odd but I can't put my finger on why.

And the 'healing' of the lame and blind in the temple was insipid and didn't really tell us anything about Jesus other than he welcomed everyone. Far more effective in that regard was his encounter with the prostitute who decides to follow him. That scene was charged with real chemistry and charisma.

Overall I thought it was excellent start. I look forward top how the series unfolds over this week.

The Seldom Seen Kid sounds great to me...

I took delivery of the new Elbow album yesterday. The Seldom Seen Kid is as good as anything they've done, which means it's wonderful.

If there's a better lyricist writing in rock music today than Guy Garvey I've not come across him or her. The album is full of big songs and bigger emotions and is quite gorgeous.

Taking on the fundamentalists

There's a great piece in the review section of yesterday's Guardian by the peerless John Gray attacking the arguments of the atheist fundamentalists - Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Philip Pullman, et al.

Lucid, entertaining, cogently-argued, it's a wonderful piece of writing that demolishes the premises on which these guys base their arguments.

He also suggests that the atheists are getting more militant because they see their dream of secularism evaporating as religion makes a come-back all over the world.

It's worth checking out. Here's the link http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2265395,00.html

What happened on Palm Sunday?

It's Palm Sunday. I've found preparing a sermon for today really difficult. There is just so much to say about what happened that I have not been able to reduce my jumble of thoughts to a manageable presentation - hopefully I will this morning.

We're in Matthew this Easter and one the things that intrigues me about Matthew's telling of the story is the numbers of pairs he refers to. Scholars endlessly debate the two donkeys, some suggesting that Matthew was somewhat dim to read the Zechariah 9 prophecy to mean that the king came riding on two animals!

I wonder if Matthew draws attention to pairs in order to draw us to the heart of the story. Two disciples are sent to get two donkeys at the beginning of a narrative that concerns two crowds, two views of Jesus and two testimonies about him from outsiders. Let's unpack that.

Matthew is the only gospel writer to distinguish between the crowd accompanying Jesus and the crowd already in Jerusalem. The latter is puzzled about the commotion and ask 'who is this?' (10 - everything so far in the story has happened outside Jerusalem); the former answer that 'Jesus is the prophet from Nazareth' (11), the northern crowd and telling southern enquirers that the messiah is one of theirs!

The Jerusalem crowd gives way to the Jerusalem leaders - the chief priests and teachers of the Law - who object to the singing of the children in the temple because of what they are singing to and about Jesus (not because they are against kids choirs in the temple!). They have a view of Jesus at odds with the one Matthew has been unfolding to us through his narrative. To them Jesus is at best an interesting if maverick preacher, at worst someone who will bring the wrath of Rome down on them. They certainly believe he has no business saying the things he's reputed to have said and accepting the praises of the children.

All these pairs lead to the most crucial pair - that of the two testimonies about who Jesus is - at the heart of Matthew's story. The two testimonies come from 'outsiders' - the Galilean pilgrim crowd and the children - and concern who Jesus is.

The first identifies him as 'the prophet', a strong echo of Deuteronomy 18:15-19, which looks to the coming of the prophet like Moses, a text that informed Jewish messianic expectation in the first century. More than that, they have already suggested that he is the king foreseen by Zechariah (9:9), an echo of David's return to the city after Absolom's revolt (hence the strong emphasis on Jesus as Son of David in this section of the gospel?). Of course the crowd does not quote Zechariah, Matthew does. But the crowd's behaviour - the chanting of hosanna (from Psalm 118:25-26), the spreading of cloaks and branches on the road - point to the text in Matthew's mind: they clearly see him as God's prophet and king, the long-awaited messiah who will lead them to freedom in his Kingdom.

Having made his demonstration in the temple, the children sing and Jesus responds to his critics by citing Psalm 8:2. It all looks so innocent and the focus appears to be on Jesus and his enemies. But if we miss the detail, we miss what the temple authorities were so grieved about.

Jesus' demonstration in the temple consists of two actions - turning over the tables of a few money changers and dove sellers (probably his action was not big enough to arouse the interest of the Romans or the temple police - unlike what happened in Acts 21:27-35; this was a small-scale making of a point) and the healing of those barred from access to the temple (the blind and lame - their access was not officially barred but their lack of welcome stems from the time David took the city as narrated in 2 Samuel 5:6-8).

It was these two actions together that drew the attention of the priests and the children (and no doubt others who were amazed at what was happening). The children sing hosanna as the crowd leading Jesus into the city had done (thus tying the two halves of the story very closely together). But when the priests object, Jesus quotes Psalm 8:2, a verse that applies the singing of children to the praise of God. What is Jesus claiming here? As Dick France suggests in his excellent commentary on Matthew 'Jesus was not averse to taking upon himself what in the OT was said of Yahweh...unless he is here setting himself in the place of Yahweh, the argument is a non-sequitur' (quoting his own much earlier study on Jesus and the Old Testament).

The priests are left gagging as Jesus leaves for the day. It's only when he returns to the temple the following day that they have found their voice again and ask where he gets his authority from (23)