Category — New Testament Survey

Read Matthew 21.

This chapter in Matthew is all about authority and submission. In the first three sections, Matthew presented Jesus as an authority figure as follows:

• In verses 1-11, Jesus entered Jerusalem greeted by a cheering, worshipping crowd. Matthew explicitly ties this to Jesus’ position as king, quoting Zechariah 9:9. Thus, as the Messiah, the true Davidic king that the Jews were ostensibly waiting for, Jesus presented himself as the ruling authority figure of Israel.
• In verses 12-17, Jesus entered the temple. While there, he rid the temple of merchants and healed the sick. Again he received the worshipful shouts of people, this time from children (v. 15). This paragraph presents Jesus as the authority over worship—cleansing the temple of corrupt worship and receiving the worship of others.
• In verses 18-22, Jesus cursed the unproductive fig tree, dooming it to perpetual unproductivity. When the tree responded immediately by withering, the disciples were surprised and asked Jesus how it withered so quickly. Jesus responded with a quick lesson on prayer. The curse Jesus pronounced on the tree and its immediate withering demonstrated his authority over nature. The lesson on prayer demonstrated his authority on truth

In verse 23, as Jesus was teaching, the earthly authorities (the chief priests and “elders of the people”) confronted him and demanded to know on what authority he was “doing these things.” Jesus presented them a riddle—on which they punted—and then refused to answer their question about authority (vv. 24-27). Instead, Jesus presented two kingdom parables, both of which struck at the heart of their unbelief.

The parable of the sons (vv. 28-32) contrasts the true heirs of the kingdom (crooks and hookers) from those who presented themselves as God’s children (the religious authorities). Sinners like prostitutes and crooked tax collectors have openly rebelled against God. Their sinful lifestyle shows it to everyone. But when John came preaching the gospel, they humbled themselves, changed their minds about sin, and followed Jesus. The religious authorities of Jesus’ day said all the right things about serving God. They were masters of pious talk and, judging only by their talk, you would think they were obedient children to God. But, like the son who promised to work but did not, the religious figures were disobedient. Jesus proclaimed that the Really Bad Sinners would enter God’s kingdom ahead of the priests and elders (vv. 32).

The parable of the tenants foreshadowed the coming crucifixion of Jesus by the very religious men who were now speaking to Jesus (see v. 39). Therefore, Jesus said, “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit” (v. 43). The religious leaders “knew he was talking about them” (v. 45), but to repent and respond would put them in the same league as the crooks and hookers who followed Jesus. Everyone saw Jesus demonstrate his authority, but only a few humbled themselves and submitted to the authority of Christ.

Unbelief today can sometimes take the form of religious people such as the Pharisees and Sadducees. It can also take the form of atheists, agnostics, and the spiritually indifferent. Regardless of the form it takes, the response to Jesus is always the same—rejection. People who reject Jesus see and hear of his lordship, but they refuse to bow to his authority. The mark of a truly spiritual person is not his or her pious talk or religious activity; it is submission to the authority of Christ in every aspect of life. When you bow down to worship Jesus truly, you also hand over to him control over everything you do. That’s what salvation is all about—a repentant heart that turns from stubborn disobedience to complete surrender to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Read Matthew 20.

Matthew 20 opens with another kingdom parable, this one about a landowner and some temporary workers he hired. In this story, the landowner hires men at four different times during the day. The landowner specified what the pay would be for the first group (v. 2: a denarius was the typical daily wage for hired workers [see this ESV footnote]), then told the other two groups that their pay would be appropriate (v. 4: “whatever is right”). At the end of the day, the landowner sent his manager to pay the men, with the men who worked least getting paid first. Despite the fact that they had been promised a denarius (v. 2, 13), the men who worked the longest complained that their pay was unfair because all the men were paid the same, despite the fact that they did not work the same amount of hours.

The landowner objected to being called unfair and reminded the men that they had agreed to the standard daily wage of one denarius. He stated that the pay received by the later workers was an act of generosity (vv. 14-15), not an attempt to cheat the earlier workers.

But the story does feel unfair. It seems unjust to pay everyone the same despite the fact that some of the men clearly worked longer and in more unpleasant weather (v. 12). Still, a deal is a deal and when the original workers agreed to the terms, they were undoubtedly happy to be working that day.

Jesus concluded the story by stating merely, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last” (v. 16). This is a puzzling statement that Jesus had made previously in Matthew 19:30 which we also read today. In chapter 19, Jesus applied this “last/first” statement to the disciples as contrasted with the rich young man. The rich young man finished in first place in this world; the disciples (a rowdy band of ex-fishermen types) were bringing up the rear in the earthly economic rat race. But because they forsook all to follow him, something the rich young man was unwilling to do, Jesus promised them a reward (19:29). Then Jesus stated the same moral in 19:30 that he stated here in 20:16. But seeing how this “last/first” kingdom truth applies in both passages is difficult.

D. A. Carson, in his commentary on Matthew in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary Series (which iRecommend highly), has some helpful comments about this “last/first” statement. Concerning 19:30, he writes on page 426 that the best way to understand this parable is:

…a way of setting forth God’s grace over against all notions that the rich, powerful, great, and prominent will continue in the kingdom. Those who approach God in childlike trust (vv. 13-15) will be received and advanced in the kingdom beyond those who, from the world’s perspective, enjoy prominence now.

Returning then to the parable of the landowner, Jesus states that nobody in the kingdom can complain that they did not receive the correct reward. As Carson writes concerning 20:16: “The point of the parable is not that all in the kingdom will receive the same reward but that kingdom rewards depend on God’s sovereign grace (cf. v. 23)” (p. 428).

It is not uncommon in church work to find people who feel slighted. They faithfully serve in a ministry somewhere but never receive any recognition. While they may receive a great reward in heaven for their service, we must remember that none of us is entitled to anything from God. While we may do much work for God’s kingdom, the fact that we are in God’s kingdom at all is completely due to God’s grace.

Read Matthew 19. (Click here for more information about this devotional.)

Matthew 19:1-9 addresses the issue of divorce and remarriage. I wrote my Master of Theology thesis on this subject and, if you care to, you can read that here.

The rest of Matthew 19 contrasts two responses to Jesus. When given the opportunity to pray for children, Jesus remarks that “the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (v. 14). This is a reference to the childlike humility required to become a Christian. Jesus explained this in Matthew 18:2-4.

The rich young man who came to Jesus in vv. 16-24 demonstrates the contrasting response to the humility typified by children. He came to Jesus asking, “What good thing must I do to get eternal life?” (v. 16). Since he is focused on works, Jesus plays along, eventually asking him to give up everything he owned (v. 21). But, Jesus did not leave salvation in the realm of good works, because he closed his instructions by saying, “come and follow me” (v. 21). That is the issue. The rich man was not willing to follow Jesus. He loved his wealth more than he loved Jesus.

In the follow-up conversation Jesus had with the disciples about this, Jesus used the image of a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Contrary to popular belief, there was no city gate called “The Needle’s Eye” that camels had to kneel to go through. Jesus is speaking of a literal camel (something huge) passing through a literal needle’s eye (something so small that I can’t even get thread thorough it, much less a camel). The disciples understood the image instantly and remarked, “Who then can be saved?” (v. 25). The criteria for discipleship is impossible for humans, but Jesus declared, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (v. 26).

Salvation, therefore, is a completely non-human work. Because of our sin natures, we cannot keep all the commands of God, nor can we love Jesus so much that we would forsake everything to follow him. Only God can cause a person to lay down his valuables, forget about his own human efforts, and come with the helplessness and dependence of a child asking for Jesus to save him. The cost of discipleship is high—so high that only God can make you want to pay it. But God also promises that whatever costs you incur in this life will be eclipsed by the rich inheritance he will give to all who follow Jesus by faith (vv. 29-30).

Read Matthew 18. (Click here for more information about this devotional.)

For many students of the Bible, the words “Matthew eighteen” are synonymous with the words “church discipline.” This is, of course, because of Jesus’ extended teaching in verses 15-19 about how to respond to “a brother who sins against you” (v. 15). Although Jesus’ teaching on this subject ends negatively, with the person under discipline being treated “as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (v. 17), negativity is not the thrust of the passage. In other words, the process Jesus describes in this passage, which we call church disciple, is not intended to inflict pain or to punish the sinning believer. In verse 15, Jesus said, “If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” That phrase applies to every step of the disciplinary process. The reason Christ told us to confront other believers who have sinned is so that the person who sinned can be restored to obedience. The goal is restoration; in other words, church discipline is part of the discipleship process. It is one of the ways God takes us from justified, but sinful to justified and holy.

Unfortunately, sometimes the injured party—the one who was sinned against—can have a difficult time forgiving the sinner when he or she repents. Jesus recognized this tendency in us and gave a parable about it in verses 21-35.

This parable of Jesus answers Peter’s question, “How many time shall I forgive my brother…” (v. 21)? Jesus answered the question directly in verse 22—seventy-seven times, which is a concrete way of saying that you shouldn’t keep track and you should never withhold forgiveness, no matter how egregious or frequent the offense.

This is difficult to accept. When someone sins against us, our personal sense of justice is smacked. We want that person punished, in part because we are sinful (therefore, unforgiving) and in part because we possess an innate sense of justice—created in us by a just and holy God—which is outraged the idea of unpunished sin. Jesus therefore told a parable to explain why we should be so extraordinarily generous when forgiving each other.

The major theme of the parable (vv. 23-34) is that a king generously forgave a servant who was then stingy about forgiving someone else. The amount of money forgiven by the king was staggering (v. 24); the amount demanded by the servant was paltry (v. 28). Jesus said that “the kingdom of heaven” is like the response of the king to the unforgiving servant. In verse 34, the king sent the unforgiving servant to jail until he was able to pay back what he owed the king, something he would never be able to do. How exactly is this like the kingdom of heaven? Jesus answered that in verse 33: “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”

Given the NT’s teaching on grace and on security, these words of Jesus are stunning. It sounds like Jesus is saying that God will revoke the forgiveness we have in Christ (i.e. take away our salvation) if we are unforgiving toward others. But that interpretation misses the original answer of Jesus to Peter’s question. Read verses 21-22 again. Consider: Jesus commands Peter and us to be generous with forgiveness because God, like the king in the story, has forgiven us far more. Nobody could ever sin against you as often or as brutally as you and I have sinned against God. If we are stingy with forgiveness, then, Jesus says we are demonstrating a heart that has not really comprehended the magnitude of God’s forgiveness to us.

The Bible teaches that God saves us by giving us something we cannot deserve or earn. We are not saved by doing human works, nor do we retain our salvation by doing human works. But the same gospel that saves us also changes us fundamentally within. When we fail to show forgiveness to others, we are demonstrating to everyone that we have not truly experienced God’s forgiveness toward us. Thus, the warning Jesus closes with in verse 33 is a warning about the authenticity of our salvation. When we have truly experienced God’s forgiveness for our sins, we become forgiving ourselves. We begin to reflect God’s behavior toward us in our behavior toward each other.

Read Matthew 17. (Click here for more information about this devotional.)

Tax collectors do what tax collectors do and here in chapter 17, Matthew, a former tax collector, records the story of some other tax collectors approaching Peter about whether or not Jesus pays the temple tax. This was a religious tax; not a Roman one. It was collected annually from the Jews. Exodus 30:13 records the first instance of this tax; see also 2 Chronicles 24:9 and Nehemiah 10:32 for other examples.

When asked if Jesus pays this temple tax, Peter immediately responds positively that he does (vv. 24-25). Jesus later informs Peter that he (Jesus) is exempt (v. 25b). The basis of Jesus’ exemption is that the tax was imposed by God through the Mosaic Law. As the true Son of God, Jesus was not required to pay the tax because royalty does not tax itself. Just as princes in a human monarchy would not pay the tax imposed by their father the king, so Jesus did not need to pay what his Father demanded through the Law of Moses. This is the reasoning of Jesus in verses 25 and 26.

Regardless, Jesus did not use his legitimate exemption as a way to avoid the claim Peter made to the tax collectors. Instead, he provides a way for Peter to pay the tax on Jesus’ behalf and he generously provided for Peter’s taxes as well. Jesus did this, he said, “so that we may not offend them” (v. 27). This is a phrase that invites close consideration.

When we speak in English about “offending” someone, we typically mean that we caused someone else to have hurt feelings—anger, resentment, annoyance, or irritation. In the NT, the word “offend” usually means “cause to sin.” By telling the tax collectors that Jesus was good for the temple tax, Peter was essentially making a promise to them that Jesus would pay. Having been told that Jesus would pay, the collectors may have been offended (caused to sin) if he refused to pay. The offense would be that they would have a wrong understanding about Jesus. They might have taken the sinless Son of God to be a liar and thus, though Jesus was totally innocent, Peter’s words might have caused them to ascribe sin to Jesus. Christ’s command to Peter to pay the tax, then, removed the opportunity for offense. That is, it removed the sinful result that could have resulted if Jesus appeared to be untruthful.

This story seems to have been included by Matthew as another instance of how Christ replaced the institutions of Judaism. But Christ’s actions in this passage also do something else. By making sure that Peter was truthful when he spoke for Jesus about paying the tax, Jesus underscored the importance of being a truthful person. Even though (a) Peter had no right to speak for Jesus and (b) Jesus had no obligation to pay this tax, he provided payment to Peter in order to keep his truthfulness in tact.

Earlier in Matthew, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus commanded the disciples not to take an oath (Matt 5:34-37). An oath is a solemn promise to tell the truth, usually calling God or someone else as a witness to your truthfulness. Jesus commanded the disciples, instead of taking an oath, to “simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No…’” (Matt 5:37) When we are called on to report about something we see, hear, or know about, we should always tell the truth. We should never feel the need to bolster our credibility by “swearing to God,” nor should people require us to do that. People should know that we always tell the truth; therefore, our word is always reliable whether or not we are under oath.

Here in Matthew 17:27, Jesus applies the importance of being truthful in another way. When you and I lead someone to believe that we will do something, they should be able to count on us to do that thing. It doesn’t matter if we were foolish or rash when we agreed to the task. It doesn’t matter if some other factor should legitimately let us off the hook. If we tell another person that we will do something, our faith in Christ and our desire to obey him as his followers should cause us to keep our word. This goes for common agreements like showing up for an appointment (on time, I might add) and for big, important promises like remaining faithful to your marriage vows. Our God is a God of truth; our eternity depends on the truthfulness of his statement that he will save us through faith in Jesus. As his sons and daughters, we too should be truthful—telling the truth about what we know and doing the things that we tell others we we will do.

Read Matthew 16. (Click here for more information about this devotional.)

In verses 5-12, Jesus warns the disciples about the false teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. His warning takes the form of an unusual comparison to yeast. The reason for comparing it to yeast is not immediately clear, either to the disciples or to us. The disciples, not knowing how the words “yeast” and “Pharisees/Sadducees” connect, decide to focus on the first of these three words and conclude that Jesus is unhappy with them for not bringing food (v. 7).

When Jesus comments on their discussion, he reminds them of the miracles he did to feed the five thousand and the four thousand. Then he emphasized again that he is talking about “the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The disciples then understand that Jesus is warning about the teaching of these religious parties, not about bread that rises (v. 12). Then the thought ends.

Matthew does not interpret the phrase “yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees” other than to say that it is the false “teaching” of these two groups (v. 12). But what is point of comparison between yeast and teaching? In what way does false doctrine resemble yeast?

In a previous context, Jesus compared the kingdom of heaven to yeast (Matthew 13:33). There, the similarity between yeast and the kingdom seems to be that the kingdom starts small but eventually permeates all the dough. Likewise, the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees had a similar pattern of spreading, though in this case, unlike bread and the kingdom, its leavening is corrosive rather than beneficial.

I think that Jesus’ warning in this passage applies to false teaching beyond the errors of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The history of Christianity demonstrates how entire systems of doctrine can be corrupted by an small misinterpretation. This word from Jesus underscores the need to guard what teaching we accept as valid. While there can be a tendency among some Christians to be divisive over insignificant details, a more common problem in my opinion is for Christians to be unconcerned, even careless, about doctrinal deviations from TV evangelists, popular Christian authors, radio preachers, Christian musicians, traveling preachers, and even their own friends and pastors. Jesus warns us to be on guard because even a small amount of false doctrine can spread and corrupt your entire Christian faith.

Read Matthew 15. (Click here for more information about this devotional.)

The Pharisees confronted Jesus here (vv. 1-2) about how his disciples refused to follow the ceremonial washing … uh… ceremony that the Pharisees felt should be part of everybody’s pre-meal ritual. Jesus responded by changing the subject (vv. 3-9). Ceremonial washing has nothing to do with good hygiene. It was a worthless manmade idea infused with false spiritual value by Jews like the Pharisees who felt spiritual by doing meaningless religious rituals (vv. 7-11).

By changing the subject, Jesus silenced his critics by exposing their duplicity on a more important subject—they way they (dis)honored their parents.

“Honor your father and mother” is number 5 on God’s Big Ten. This command is broad enough to apply in a number of ways, but most our thinking about this command relates it to children. This is, of course, correct. See Ephesians 6:1-3 for one such example.

However, the command cannot be limited only to the ways in which minors relate to their parents. Here in Matthew 15, Jesus applied the command to adults. He stated that an adult breaks the fifth commandment by refusing to help his or her needy parents.

According to rabbinical rules, if a person stated that something was a gift devoted to God, that oath was binding, even if it was made foolishly. According to Jesus (vv. 4-6), the Pharisees used this “rule” to evade financial support of their needy, probably elderly, parents. When their parents came asking for food or other daily needs, the Pharisees would say, “I have devoted every extra penny to God as a gift. I’m sorry I can’t help, but this is a binding oath.”

Jesus blasted these men for using manmade religious rules as a means to avoid obedience to God’s Word. The fifth commandment should trump any extra-biblical religious ceremony. God is more honored when we care for our parents then when we make a large donation to the church building fund, though the two are not often mutually exclusive.

While we may not be guilty of using our local church giving as a way to avoid helping our parents, we should reflect very carefully from this passage about the way we treat our parents when we become adults. I recognize that there are times when an older parent’s physical or mental illnesses require that they have full-time medical treatment. But I also believe that we may be too quick to shuffle parents off to retirement centers and nursing homes when they could enjoy their remaining time living with us.

When I was a young boy my grandmother, who was dying of cancer, came to live in our home. I was too young to remember much about how that affected our family. I’m sure it was an inconvenience to my parents at times; however, I do remember how much I enjoyed having her around and I hope that my brothers and I were a blessing to her, despite our typically boyish behavior. Even if your parents need constant medical care or choose to live in a retirement home or in their own home, the fourth commandment still applies to us at every stage of our adulthood. We should remember the parents God gave us to love and care for us growing up and show them the kind of love and honor and dignity they deserve, just because they’re our parents.

Excuse me now; I need to call my mom and dad.

Read Matthew 14. (Click here for more information about this devotional.)

Most of Matthew 14 is dedicated to the true identity of Jesus. The opening paragraph describes Herod’s opinion of Jesus. When he “heard the reports about Jesus… he said to his attendants, ‘This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him’” (vv. 1b-2). The remainder of this paragraph describes how John died at the hands of Herod, which explains why Herod was so anxious about the ministry of Jesus. The key verse in this section is verse 5 which says, in part: “…he was afraid of the people, because they considered him a prophet.” So Herod has misunderstood who Jesus is in two important ways. First, he has misunderstood Jesus as a man by identifying him with John the Baptist. Second, because he thought Jesus was John, he thought Jesus was merely a prophet.

Following this story about the death of John, Jesus performs two incredible miracles. In verses 15 through 21, Jesus took a small amount of food and created enough to feed over 5,000 people. In verses 22-33, Jesus walks on water and provides Peter with the power to do the same. The reaction of the disciples to this is stated in verse 33: “Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’”

Matthew frequently describes the miraculous works of Jesus as works of “compassion.” We see once instance of this right here in this chapter, verse 14. But the major reason for the miracles of Christ is to authenticate his claims about himself. While God had used prophets to heal and raise the dead in the OT, nobody could do the abundance of miracles Jesus did while making the claim to divinity and accepting worship offered by those who believe him to be God.

Although we have not witnessed the miracles of Jesus personally, the Holy Spirit captured these moments and their interpretation for us through Matthew in order to prove to us that Christ is everything he claimed to be. These passages about Jesus are not merely stories or words on a page. They are the direct communication of God through the writings of one who witnessed these events and testifies to their accuracy. Those who claim to follow Jesus as a great teacher or prophet have ignored the Bible’s presentation of who Jesus is. Therefore, they are dishonoring God by placing Jesus into a lower rank “prophet” when his words and works call for him to be worshipped as God.

Earlier this week I met a woman who was trying to evangelize me into her false religion. When she found out that I am a pastor, she started asking me about various things I believe. She said she was looking for common between us; but when I told her my beliefs about Jesus, she stated, “Well, there’s something we disagree on.” But it is far more than just something we disagree on. I tried to emphasize to her that our different beliefs about Jesus made everything else incompatible. Any agreement we may have on any theological matter is irrelevant and merely coincidental. The question, “Who is Jesus?” stands central to everything a person believes about God.

Read Matthew 13 (Click here for more information about this devotional.)

This chapter is dominated by talk about “the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus gave five parables to explain what the kingdom of heaven is like.

The first of these kingdom stories—the parable of the soils (vv. 3-23)—explains so much about people’s responses to the gospel. Jesus said that the four types of soils represent four types of people and how they respond to the gospel. One type of person (the soil on the path, vv. 4, 19) does not understand the gospel; therefore, the devil is able to remove the influence of the gospel from that person and he does not respond.

The second type of person (the rocky soil, vv. 5-6, 20-21) makes an initial positive response to God’s word, but falls away when trouble or persecution come.

The third type of person (the thorny soil, vv. 7, 22) does not respond to the good news because he or she is so consumed with daily human life.

The final type of person (the good soil, vv. 8, 23) receives the message about the kingdom, understands it, and bears fruit in his or her life.

Of these four types of responses to the gospel, two are apparently positive and two are clearly negative. But one of the apparently positive responses (the rocky soil), is only positive on the surface. Lacking roots (v. 21), the initial fruit of the gospel in this person’s life does not last. It cannot stand up under the pressure that comes from being a Christian. The pressure of following Jesus reveals that this person has not truly accepted the gospel.

This parable teaches an important Christian doctrine called the perseverance of the saints. Stated concisely, the doctrine of perseverance teaches that everyone who truly knows Jesus will bear fruit. Every true Christian will show it by a life of obedience and steadfast faith in Christ and Christian doctrine. Due to our sin nature, none of us follows Christ with perfect obedience. But every true Christian will have a long trail of evidence for his or her faith that exists until that person’s earthly life ends.

It is very important to respond to the gospel. You cannot be a Christian without welcoming the gospel. But a positive response to the gospel is not the deciding factor of true Christianity. Because true faith in Christ is a matter of the heart (therefore, unseen), the only way to know whether or not it is genuine is to watch for a harvest of good works that take over a person’s life.

Read Matthew 12 (Click here for more information about this devotional.)

Earlier, in Matthew 10:34-39, Jesus told the disciples that the cost of discipleship was so high that human families would be torn apart by it.

Now, here in Matthew 12:46-50, he models this truth in his own life. In verse 47, Jesus is told that his mother and brothers are waiting outside to speak to him. I think that it is telling that they were “standing outside” waiting instead of listening inside. This suggests that they were not following him as disciples, a fact that John confirms (regarding his brothers, at least) in John 7:5.

Something else interests me about verse 47. While Matthew does not say it, I wonder if his family did not send someone in to interrupt Jesus. Instead of listening and learning from Jesus, or at least waiting patiently for him to finish teaching, Jesus’ human family felt they had some claim on his time and attention. As his mother and brothers either they, or maybe just the person who informed Jesus, felt that it was inappropriate to keep them waiting.

Jesus’ response indicates that his human, physical connection to these people was irrelevant. Instead, Jesus pointed to the disciples and claimed them as his true family. The basis of their family connection to him was not biological, but spiritual. As those who do “the will of my Father in heaven” (v. 50) they were demonstrating that they had experienced the new birth Jesus preached about. By God’s grace, they had been born spiritually and adopted into God’s family. Therefore, it was more important to Jesus to spend time with them than it was to bow to the claims his human family thought they had on him.

This passage should be a great comfort to you if you have lost the fellowship of brothers or sisters or parents or children or spouse or good friends because of your faith in Jesus. Although losing your family is painful, you can be comforted by the love that comes from being part of God’s family.

[By the way: According to Acts 1:14 Jesus mother and brothers did come to be part of his spiritual family, too.]