Sermon and Worship Resources

Luke 14:25-35 · The Cost of Being a Disciple

25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. 27 And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

28 "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29 For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30 saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'

31 "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

34 "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Hate Your Mother And Father?

Luke 14:25-35

Sermon
by John G. Lynch

For many years American children sat down after supper each evening to snap on their radio dials. Sometimes they heard a sepulchre, Peter Lorre voice from a man named Raymond tell them about the "Inner Sanctum." On those nights America's children were scared. On other nights they waited with untrammeled glee until a man named McGee opened a closet door and years of clutter crashed to the living room floor. On those nights America's children were filled with great mirth. On yet another night, as they snapped on their Crosleys, Stromberg-Carlsons, or Zeniths, they waited with anxious breath until a woman's voice cried out, "Henry, Henry Aldrich," and a young teenager's voice answered, "Coming, Mother." On those nights America's children felt right at home.

Henry Aldrich did not hate his mother. So far as we know, he didn't hate his father either. In fact, he didn't hate anybody.

What, then, does Jesus mean in today's gospel when he says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple"?

Coming back from Europe on a ship about 20 years ago, a young priest sat down one evening as a guest at the captain's table. The captain had been looking for someone to say mass on Sunday. Father Petrino volunteered, so he received this invitation in return. As he sat down, the first mate, an Italian, said, "Padre, before we sit down I want to tell you something. I hate all priests!" That was one of the rare times Father Petrino had heard anyone that clear and up front about the particular feeling called "Hate."

Is this what Jesus means? Are we to tell our mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and wives, as we sit down to eat with them, "Before we begin this dinner tonight, mom and dad, sis and brother, I need to tell you something. I am now a disciple of Jesus and I hate all of you!"

That's not what Jesus has in mind. In this section of Luke's gospel, Jesus has just finished a dinner with one of the chief Pharisees. Let there be no mistake about it, the scribes and the Pharisees -- at least some of them -- did hate Jesus. No word better describes how they felt. They hated him because he called into question their priorities -- their high value set on repression and control of the mercy, the kindness, and the tenderness of God. That's generally how hate grows anyway ... like a bacteria in a culture of repression and control.

No, Jesus has in mind something other than a dinner table scene where people tell each other how much they hold each other in contempt. After that dinner at the Pharisee's home, Jesus left, and great multitudes followed him. The gospel word for "multitudes" means a great crowd of harassed and troubled folk. What or who harassed and troubled these men and women? What Jesus said to them, as he turned, gives the clue: "If anyone comes after me and does not hate ..." "Hate" is not primarily a feeling word in the Aramaic language, the language Jesus spoke. It is primarily a priority word. It means to abandon or to leave aside; the way a sailor needs to abandon a sinking ship or the way a general needs to leave aside distracting things to win his battle.

This crowd following Jesus was harassed and troubled because they did not have their priorities straight. They needed to abandon the priorities of mother, father, brother, sister and wife to set up the priority of God. This crowd, still sailing on the sails of infancy and childhood, let the winds of family responsibility fill their sails instead of the Spirit of God. Familial expectations ran higher on the crest of their waves than hope from God. That's why they were harassed and troubled. Standing still, like Henry Aldrich at the foot of the hallway stairs, their lives were poised only to answer, "Coming, Mother!"

It is not easy for us to give up these natural priorities established when we were very young. Had not mother and father been priorities, then we would not have survived. There comes a day when priorities must alter, when the wind for our sails must come from another direction. The risky road of faith demands independence from family and the close companionship of God.

A few months before he posted his 95 theses on the chapel door, Martin Luther preached on this need we have to get out of our natural priorities and move on to God. "We work, we labor and we speculate," he said, "and we accomplish nothing else except to increase the restlessness of our souls. To all of us Christ says, 'You cannot refresh yourselves, but I can. Get out of yourselves and come to me. Despair of yourselves and hope in me, just as Abraham went out from his country, his kindred, and his father's house.' "1

No such confusion in Jesus. The priorities were straight. A little later on in this gospel account Jesus met the rich young ruler who did not kill, steal, or commit adultery. He honored his father and his mother. "One thing you still lack," said Jesus, "sell all that you have. Negotiate in the marketplace your non-murderous, non-thieving, non-adulterous life. Barter with other men and women the honor you hold for your mother and father. Give that honor to the others who need honor from you (the gospel calls these people 'poor') and you will begin to have treasure in heaven. Then, come, follow me."

The rich young man couldn't do it. He had all those things in such abundance he felt he could never give them up. So much was invested in his life of no murders, no thefts and no adultery he could not trade it away for a more positive life. Honor for mother and father held him like a bear trap. He could not abandon that ship to sail on freer seas. His face fell; he was very sad.

Clutching the gold of his personal priorities, he valued his commandments more than his independence. Honor of mother and father weighed more heavily on the scale than his own freedom. Jesus said to Peter and his disciples, after meeting this rich young ruler, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive manifold more in this time and in the age to come, eternal life."

The freedom of the individual believer -- that's what Jesus meant when he said to the troubled crowd, "Hate your mother and father." He didn't say, "Kill them," "rob them," "make war on them," or "blast them off the map." He said simply, "Leave them aside. Abandon them when they become a sinking ship for you. Let them go when they are a distraction in your battles. Only God will ever be your steady ship. Only God will lead you, like a general, free."

It is so easy to be beguiled in all this. Family is so natural and the bonds are so strong. Family life, claiming energy, time, property and resources, sets the familiar and comfortable course. God's call reaches beyond the path of family ties. His demands are greater, but so are his rewards -- purpose, direction and the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Why, then, stand at the foot of the hallway stairs all our lives long? Jesus' good news says, "Move on. Abandon that ship. Its hull has rotted and its sails are torn. Stay on the ship of family and you will never leave port. Stay on the ship of God and you will sail forever."

1. Luther's Works, 51 (Muhlenberg, 1959), pp. 29-30.

CSS Publishing Company, Troubled Journey, by John G. Lynch

Overview and Insights · Counting the Cost of Discipleship (14:25–35)

Those who desire to follow Jesus must count the cost. Anyone who loves family more than Jesus cannot be his disciple (14:26). (We know from Matt. 10:37 that Luke’s rhetorical term “hate” means to “love less.”) Also, anyone who wants to avoid suffering and rejection cannot be Jesus’s disciple (14:27). Jesus then illustrates the demands of disciples. First, a m…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Luke 14:25-35 · The Cost of Being a Disciple

34 "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Commentary · The Cost of Being a Disciple

The scene changes. Jesus is no longer in the Pharisee’s house; now a large crowd is following him (14:25). Jesus challenges the crowd to think carefully about the radical commitment that he demands (14:25–35). Jesus invites all to follow him (cf. 14:15–24). Yet following him is not easy but requires ruthless self-denial. The call to hate one’s family members is startling (14:26). Obviously, Jesus is not speaking of “psychological hatred” (cf. 6:27–28). The use of hyperbolic language indicates that no one can take precedence over Jesus. One must renounce “even their own life” and be willing to follow Jesus in the way of death (14:26–27). Those who are not willing to follow Jesus in such a radical way cannot be his disciples. Two illustrations are given to show the need for counting the cost before embarking on the road to discipleship. Someone building a tower (14:28–30) would surely calculate the cost of the project before starting. A half-finished building would be the object of ridicule. So too no king would plan to wage war against an enemy without considering beforehand the possibilities of victory (14:31–32). The application from the two illustrations is drawn in verse 33. Before one embarks on the road to discipleship, one needs to recognize from the beginning that Jesus demands total and complete commitment. Only those who have such a radical commitment can be Jesus’s disciples. The illustration of the salt makes a similar point (14:34–35). A disciple who is not salty is one who ceases to be radically committed. Such disciples are good for nothing.

The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Big Idea: The kingdom of God demands our full commitment; you cannot be a half-hearted disciple.

Understanding the Text

Jesus’s table talk in the house of a leading Pharisee continues with a parable about a similar banquet, which picks up the theme of 14:12–14, the challenge to invite those who cannot reciprocate. In the parable, however, the host represents God himself, whose open-hearted generosity is the model that we are called to follow. But the parable also highlights the obverse of that free grace, the fate of those who, having initially accepted the invitation, then failed to honor it. This raises the possibility of failed discipleship, and the following verses, 14:25–35, explore this theme, not now at the table, but as Jesus continues his journey toward Jerusalem. This paragraph therefore takes up the theme with which the journey began (9:57–62): the cost of following Jesus.

Historical and Cultural Background

For the significance of meals and who is invited to them, see “Historical and Cultural Background” on 14:1–14. This parable reflects the protocol followed for more formal meals, for which an invitation was issued and accepted some time in advance, so that the host would know how much food to prepare; acceptance of the initial invitation was thus a social commitment. A slave was then sent out on the day to tell the guests when the feast was ready (cf. Esther 5:8; 6:14). To back out at that stage would expose the host to serious embarrassment and loss of face.

The banquet in the parable clearly represents the messianic banquet (see “Historical and Cultural Background” on 13:18–35), a traditional way of envisaging ultimate salvation. For the challenge to accepted convention in Jesus’s demand that his disciples put following him before family loyalty, see on 9:57–62.

Interpretive Insights

14:15 Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God. This reference to the messianic banquet perhaps invites Jesus to endorse the popular expectation of who will be on the guest list. Instead, as in 13:28–29, Jesus will turn it on its head.

14:16–20 they all alike began to make excuses. Parables often contain features that would be improbable in real life. It is most unlikely that the three “excuses” listed (especially getting married!) could have arisen unforeseen in the short time between the original invitation and the call to table, or that anyone would buy a field or oxen (let alone the considerable investment of five pairs) without first inspecting them. Such implausible excuses would be a calculated insult to the host, and his anger is understandable. But these excuses serve within the parable context to illustrate the sort of preoccupations (property, commerce, relationships) that (like the thorns in the field [8:14]) can get in the way of effective discipleship.

14:21 the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame. These are the same four groups of people whom Jesus has exhorted his host to invite to meals in 14:13 (and who were excluded from the messianic banquet as envisaged by the Qumran community [1Q28a 2.3–9]). These are the people least likely to be invited to a special meal because they will be unable to return the invitation and so fulfill the expected social convention. But it is these “losers” who represent the ultimate beneficiaries of the kingdom of God.

14:22 there is still room. In adding a second stage of recruitment (contrast Matt. 22:9–10), Luke is perhaps reflecting on the process that he will relate in Acts: the mission to Jews was followed by one to Gentiles (represented here by those outside the town). The repeated and pressing invitation emphasizes the host’s determination that his provision not be wasted, and thus it expresses God’s desire to welcome as many as possible into his kingdom.

14:23 compel them to come in. The verb “compel” (anankaz?) conveys a sense of urgency, but is not a sanction for forcible conversion, still less for the excesses of the Inquisition. In the parable setting, these “no-hopers” would naturally be reluctant to believe that such an invitation could be serious, and so they would need to be persuaded.

14:24 I tell you. The “you” is plural, whereas in the parable the host has spoken to his slave in the singular; either he now addresses the newly assembled guests, or, perhaps more likely, this is Jesus’s concluding comment. In the latter case, the messianic banquet has remarkably become Jesus’s banquet.

not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet. The parable balances the free grace of God with the reality of judgment for those who reject his salvation. Like the saying in 13:28–29, this parable speaks of the replacement of those who should have been at the banquet by a motley group of those who have no right to be there. The parallel parable in Matthew 22:1–14 is grouped with two others that speak of the loss of the privileged status of the Jewish religious leadership in favor of those whom they despised, and the setting here in the house of a leading Pharisee may indicate that Luke had a similar replacement theology in mind; but if so, it is less clearly marked by either the wording or setting than in Matthew.

14:26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother. Jesus often exaggerated in order to make a point forcefully, and few interpreters have supposed that actual hatred is meant here. It is a matter of priorities: even the most basic of human attachments must give way to the demands of God’s kingdom (cf. 18:29). For a similar use of “hate” in the sense of “love less,” see 16:13, and compare Genesis 29:31–33; Malachi 1:2–3. The Matthean parallel here has “love more than” (Matt. 10:37).

14:27 whoever does not carry their cross. See on 9:23. Jesus’s own crucifixion will not be specifically referred to as such until the crowd shouts for it in 23:21, but the cross was well enough known and feared in the Roman world, and especially in Palestine, where it was regarded as a barbarous foreign punishment, to make the metaphor unmistakable.

14:28 Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. This is the first of two hypothetical scenarios designed to illustrate the danger of embarking rashly on discipleship without first recognizing the demands that it will make. The public humiliation of the failed tower builder illustrates the dishonor, as well as the personal tragedy, of a shallow commitment that, like the man who built without foundation (6:49), ends in spiritual disaster.

14:31 Or suppose a king is about to go to war. Here is another illustration of “biting off more than you can chew.” The detail is not to be pressed to the point of finding here a recommendation to come to terms with the enemy (the devil? sin? the secular world?); rather, the point is that you should not get started on something that you do not have the resources to complete.

14:33 those of you who do not give up everything you have. Compare the instruction in 12:33 (and in 18:22) to sell everything, and see comments there. Like the saying in 14:26, this concluding summary sets up an absolute contrast, between the things of this world and the kingdom of God, which does not take into account the practical business of living. The point is again that God must come first.

14:34 if it loses its saltiness. Pure sodium chloride cannot be anything but salt, but the “salt” taken from the shore of the Dead Sea and sold in Palestine was not pure: the salt content might be washed out, leaving a useless deposit. Whether the thought is of salt as flavoring or as preservative, it is the distinctive “saltiness” that makes an effective disciple; one who is no longer “salty” (i.e., who is indistinguishable from the world around) is no good to anyone. For this metaphorical use of salt, compare Matthew 5:13; Colossians 4:6. “Loses its saltiness” is literally “is made foolish,” possibly reflecting a pun on an Aramaic word that means both “tasteless” and “stupid.”

Theological Insights

The parable of the banquet continues the theme of surprises in the kingdom of God: the “wrong” people finish up as the winners. Salvation is by grace, not by having the right pedigree. But if salvation cannot be gained by inherited privilege or by working to deserve it, it can, apparently, be lost by failure to respond to God’s call, and the host’s dismissive words in 14:24 indicate that there is a point of no return. To have received and responded to the message of the kingdom of God is not enough if we then turn away from its demands and allow other concerns to supplant God’s claim on our lives.

The sayings about the cost of discipleship in 14:25–35, though separated from the parable by a change of scene, have a similar focus and also envisage the possibility of ultimate failure. The kingdom of God is for the committed, not for the dilettante. For Luke’s stress on this theme, see also 9:57–62; 18:24–30.

Teaching the Text

Before applying the parable to contemporary life, it is important for the teacher or preacher to set it in the context of Jesus’s ministry. This is one of Jesus’s more allegorical parables, where the banquet owner represents God, the invited guests represent the religious leaders and other “insiders” in Israel, and the second set of guests represent those “outsiders” (sinners, tax-collectors, Samaritans) who are responding positively to Jesus’s proclamation of the kingdom of God. In the book of Acts, it will be the Gentiles in particular who are the “outsiders” who respond to the gospel.

After establishing this historical context in Jesus’s ministry, it is appropriate for the teacher to contextualize the parable for today. How might it apply to contemporary church members as a call to full commitment?

Both the parable and the following sayings envisage the possibility that some who initially respond to God’s call may ultimately fail to make the grade. This raises issues at two levels: (1) theologically, it seems to call in question the traditional understanding of the “perseverance of the saints”; (2) pastorally, it opens up the issue of assurance of salvation. Does our ultimate salvation depend on our continued faithfulness? Part of the answer here may be found in considering the historical context discussed above. In light of Luke’s narrative strategy, the parable may be seen to relate especially to Israel’s corporate response, rather than to the question of individual salvation. This is about Jewish rejection and Gentile reception of the gospel. The sayings that follow, then, encourage Jesus’s hearers to consider the cost before responding. Though salvation is a free gift from God and costs us nothing, it ultimately costs us everything—our whole life given to God as a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1–2).

For issues arising from Jesus’s demand to give up everything, see “Teaching the Text” on 12:22–40. In the light of 14:26 here, listeners might be encouraged to consider the implications of discipleship for family life and loyalty, especially when not all members of a family share the faith.

In a discussion or small group setting, ask the group for examples from their own experience of the cost of following Jesus. In a sermon or teaching lesson, you might present examples from church history or more recent missionary accounts of those who have sacrificed all for the sake of the gospel.

Illustrating the Text

It is possible to lose one’s enthusiasm for the kingdom of God to competing interests and loyalties.

Video: The Great Feast, by Tim Andrews. This interesting and amusing video is an animated short that puts the parable into the context of a barbeque. The host calls friends who have any number of excuses, believable and ludicrous, for not coming: marriage, taking care of their “paddock,” sickness, and so on. The host then asks the less attractive and the infirm to the barbeque. This short film is funny and pointed and contemporary.

We must not overestimate or underestimate the call to discipleship.

Commentary: Preaching the Parables: From Responsible Interpretation to Powerful Proclamation, by Craig L. Blomberg. Blomberg articulates the problem of the modern interpreter, which is to overestimate the cost of discipleship. He writes,

Jesus is not saying that we must know everything God will ever ask of us throughout our entire lives and then agree to it in advance in order to become true believers. If that were his criterion, no one would ever qualify. Jesus is saying, however, that we must realize the amount that commitment could cost. . . . Surrendering every area means including the touchy areas of our lives that we don’t do well talking about in Christian circles, most notably that famous triad of money, sex, and power.

He adds, “The straightforward interpretation of the command to ‘give up everything’ sounds as if we must become totally impoverished.” Instead “every would-be Christian must give up whatever stands in the way of wholehearted discipleship.”

Conversely, Blomberg talks about the importance of not underestimating the cost of discipleship. In a series of personal illustrations he talks about the decision that he and his wife made to practice a principle of “graduated tithe, which means that as [their] annual gross income increase[ed] above and beyond any simple cost of living increase,” their giving went up as well. Besides that, he notes, he decided to pursue a theological career instead of one in mathematics, even though that meant a great difference in salary, because he wanted to “affect people’s lives for eternity,” and for him (he is careful to emphasize this), the math career would not have done that.1

Quote: The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith, by Tim Keller. In this book Keller, a New York City pastor, talks about the nature of a feast and its importance and its practical application today. He writes, “When we invite someone to eat with us, it is an invitation to relax a bit and get to know one another. In many cultures, to offer to eat with someone is to offer them friendship.” But, he continues, “We live in a culture in which the interests and desires of the individual take precedence over those of the family, group, or community.”2

Teaching the Text by R.T. France, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Cross

A cross is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were either tied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. The Latin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly used by the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, which allowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John 19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.).

Not long before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish ruler Alexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees who opposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character for the Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as well as by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans who perfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romans called crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because it was intended for the lowest members of society. It became the preferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion, spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common in NT times and extended well into the fourth century AD.

As for the significance of Jesus’ crucifixion, the OT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar for the sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins of the world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest atoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for a new covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). The cross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died “for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shame of the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood (Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).

Jesus also bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross. The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’s curse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’s curse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).

Jesus demonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by his obedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesus the cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for a worthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love in the Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and follow his example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ cross is a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.

Most of all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offered his Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, who willingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).

Disciple

The Greek term for “disciple,” mathētēs, means “student.” Like other rabbis and religious figures of the time, Jesus taught a group of such students (Matt. 9:14; 22:16; Mark 2:16; John 1:35; 4:1). The forms of address that Jesus’ disciples used for him reflect the nature of the relationship: “rabbi” (Mark 9:5), “teacher” (Mark 9:38), and “master” (Luke 5:5). In addition to receiving instruction from Jesus, his disciples took care of his physical needs (Matt. 21:1; John 4:8), ate with him (Matt. 9:10; 26:18), performed exorcisms and healings (Matt. 10:1; Luke 10:17), baptized (John 4:2), controlled access to Jesus (Matt. 19:13; John 12:21), and traveled with him (Luke 8:1; John 2:12). On one occasion Jesus visited the house of Peter and healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14), which suggests that although the Gospels do not generally depict the private lives of Jesus or his disciples apart from their public ministry, the relationship among these men did not prevent the disciples from maintaining their own homes, families, and, probably, occupations.

Father

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:6 17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).

Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60 percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod. 4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16; 64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).

The church as the family of God. Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship, the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into the community was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

King

A kingdom signifies the reality and extent of a king’s dominion or rule (Gen. 10:10; 20:9; Num. 32:33; 2 Kings 20:13; Esther 1:22). Some kingdoms were relatively small; others were concerted attempts to gain the whole world.

A kingdom presupposes monarchy, rule by an individual, human authority. Although kings only have as much authority as their armies and the general populace allow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, which invites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance, unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible (e.g., Dan. 3).

God originally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled by the one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14 20). Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), but the people demanded a king (1 Sam. 8:1–22). However, even when God granted their request, God remained King over the king and even retained ownership of the land (Lev. 25:23, 42, 55). The Israelite king was nothing more than God’s viceroy, with delegated authority. With few exceptions, most of the kings of Israel and Judah were corrupted by authority and wealth and forgot God (1 Sam. 13:13–14; 15:28; Matt. 14:6–11). But God made a covenant with David, so that one of his descendants would become a coregent in a restored theocracy, the kingdom of God (2 Sam. 7:1–29; Pss. 89:3; 132:11). In contrast to David’s more immediate descendants, this coming king would return to Jerusalem humble and mounted on a donkey (Zech. 9:9; cf. Isa. 62:11). The Gospels present Jesus Christ as this king (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.). Those who are likewise humble will inherit the land with him (Matt. 5:5).

Land

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12 13).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:1–4). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Salt

A crystallized mineral compound, often harvested from the Dead Sea, used with food for flavor and preservation (Job 6:6) and medicinally rubbed on infants (Ezek. 16:4). Salt was to be added to the grain offering to represent the covenant (Lev. 2:13). Just as salt survives the sacrificial fires, so does the covenant survive the difficulties of life. In the first century, salt was known as a preservative, seasoning, and fertilizer. All these uses may be behind Jesus’ statement that his disciples were “the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13), indicating that they were important for the welfare of the world.

Direct Matches

Brothers

Brotherhood and Israelite Identity

Ancient Israelite society was fundamentally organized along the lines of kinship and family. As a result, relations among brothers figure prominently in the biblical construction of Israelite identity, which is conceptualized through a series of fraternal relationships, often rife with conflict: Isaac and Ishmael; Jacob and Esau; and the twelve sons of Jacob, among whom the relationship between Joseph and his brothers is pivotal in the history of Israel. Long after the lifetimes of the patriarchs, the Israelites continued to understand the structure of their society and the relationships between its constituent tribes as a complex of fraternal relationships. The patriarchal stories of Genesis were a mirror of later social and political realities. If the sibling rivalries of antiquity explained competition between later social groups, the memory of the brotherhood of those groups also provided a basis for solidarity both within Israel (“You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother” [Deut. 17:15 ESV]) and with near neighbors (“You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother” [Deut. 23:7 ESV]). Similarly, the fraternal relationship between Moses and Aaron endured in later Israelite society as a model for synthesizing distinct strands of the religion into a coherent whole.

For later Israelite readers of the Bible, the brotherly relationships of Genesis and Exodus were not simply stories about dead ancestors; rather, they provided a compelling account of the organization of Israelite society as they knew it (see Zech. 11:14) and of the relationship between Israel and its neighbors, several of which were descended from the brothers of the Israelite patriarchs (see Ps. 83:6; Amos 1:11; Obad. 10; Mal. 1:2–4). Even though Hiram and Solomon did not trace their relationship back to a common ancestor, they extended the language of the brother alliance to their own (1 Kings 9:12–13).

Biblical literature cultivates a predilection for the underdog, elevating a long series of younger, disadvantaged brothers: the heroes of Israel included Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Gideon (Judg. 6:15), and David (1 Sam. 16:11).

The brother’s wife represented a special case. Sexual relations with a brother’s wife were strictly forbidden (Lev. 18:16; 20:21; see also Mark 6:18), but under certain circumstances one was compelled to marry a brother’s widow (Deut. 25:5–9; see variations of this practice in Gen. 38:8; Ruth 4:5–6). This custom underlay a question that Jesus was asked concerning seven brothers, each of whom died, repeatedly widowing the same woman (Matt. 22:24; Mark 6:17; Luke 14:26).

Brothers in the New Testament

Among Jesus’ twelve disciples were several pairs of brothers, including Peter and Andrew (Mark 1:16 pars.) and James and John the sons of Zebedee (Mark 1:19). Jesus himself had brothers (Mark 3:31–35; John 7:3–5; Acts 1:14), including James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Mark 6:3; see also Gal. 1:19).

In addition to the story of seven brothers mentioned above, several of Jesus’ teachings drew illustrations from the relationship of brothers, including the stories of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32) and of the rich man and Lazarus (see Luke 16:28). Jesus singled out the belittling of a brother as a particularly heinous sin (Matt. 5:22). In the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, “brother” stands not only for a literal brother but also more generally for one’s fellow human.

In light of the OT conception of Israel as a nation of brothers (see Deut. 17:15 and the discussion above), it is not surprising that Jesus and the NT authors adopted the language of brotherhood to describe the Christian community. The “brotherhood of believers” (1 Pet. 2:17 NIV 1984) derives from the common brotherhood of Christians with Christ himself. Brotherhood with Christ depends not on physical descent but on a shared commitment to obedience to God (Matt. 12:50; 23:8), and this loyalty is deeper than that of the literal family, such that it can turn “brother against brother” (Mark 13:12).

The predominant form of address in the NT Epistles is “brothers,” and in Acts the Christians are most commonly designated as “the brothers.” Paul also refers to fellow Jews, including non-Christians, as his “brothers” (Acts 22:1; Rom. 9:3 ESV). See also Brotherly Love.

Foundation

Perhaps the most discussed foundation in the Bible is that of the temple. Solomon’s temple foundation was made from choice stones (1 Kings 5:17; 7:9), was laid “in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv” (1 Kings 6:37), and was “sixty cubits long and twenty cubits wide” (2 Chron. 3:3). The laying of the foundation for the second temple by Zerubbabel (Zech. 4:9), on “the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month” (Hag. 2:18), was accompanied by mixed emotions. Some were disappointed with its meager stature in comparison to the earlier one, while others simply rejoiced for the restoration of the temple (Ezra 3:3–12).

God is said to have set his “foundation” on the holy mountain (Ps. 87:1), and the “Foundation Gate” is referenced in 2 Chron. 23:5 in relation to the temple. The earth is said to be set on a foundation (Job 38:4) whose cornerstone (’eben pinnah) was laid by God (38:6). The earth itself serves as the foundation of God’s dwelling, which is in the heavens (Amos 9:6; Zech. 12:1).

Figuratively, justice and righteousness are the foundation of God’s throne (Pss. 87:1; 89:14; 97:2), while divine judgment may be described as removal of a foundation (Jer. 51:26). Isaiah’s reference to the laying of a foundation stone in Zion (Isa. 28:16; 33:6) attains messianic fulfillment for the NT authors in the person of Jesus (1 Pet. 2:6; 5:10), who, in accordance with Zech. 10:4, is the cornerstone from Judah.

Laying a firm foundation is NT imagery for preaching or accepting the gospel. In the parables of Jesus a firm foundation (themelios), laid on rock rather than sand, is symbolic of wisdom and correct faith. Catastrophic destruction results from having the foundation set in the wrong place (Matt. 7:25; Luke 6:48–49; 14:29). “Foundation” language is heavily employed by Paul (Rom. 15:20; 1 Cor. 3:10–12), as well as by the author of Hebrews (6:1), in reference to the gospel. In a slightly different interpretation, apostles and prophets are described as the foundation of the church, with Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). Acts of goodness are commended as the laying down of a foundation for the world to come (1 Tim. 6:19; 2 Tim. 2:19), while the book of Revelation describes a heavenly city whose foundation is built with layers of precious stones (Rev. 21:19).

Hate

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility, rejection, or negative favoritism.

Hate is as old as the conflict between Cain and Abel or as the rebellion of Satan. Many stories involve hatred and animosity between people (e.g., Gen. 37:4; 2 Sam. 13:22). Beside humans hating each other, people hate God and that which is morally upright (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9; 7:10; 32:41; Pss. 68:1; 81:15; 120:6). It is correct, however, to hate sin (Pss. 97:10; 101:3; Prov. 8:13), as God does (Ps. 5:6; Prov. 6:16–19; Isa. 61:8; Rev. 2:6), though he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11). The two great commandments oppose the tendency to hate by calling us to love God wholly and love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; 10:12; Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 10:27). The reverse is also commanded: we should not hate our neighbor (Lev. 19:17) nor even hate our enemy, but rather do good and pray for our enemy (Exod. 23:4–5; Prov. 25:21; Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; cf. Deut. 10:19). Hateful actions are not necessarily motivated by hateful feelings, as a father who does not give needed punishment to his son is said to treat him with hatred (Prov. 13:24).

With regard to a hate crime, the main issue was intent—that is, whether an accident had occurred or whether a murder had been committed deliberately, “with malice aforethought” (Num. 35:20). Hate was a criterion of intent and had to be established by multiple witnesses for the two parties involved. Having hate did not garner greater punishment or make it a worse crime; hatred signified that it was a crime because it was intentional (Deut. 4:42; 19:4, 6, 11; Josh. 20:5).

With regard to marriage, in a polygamous marriage there was a danger of preferential treatment: a loved wife and a hated wife. The law forbids reducing the care of one wife in favor of another (Exod. 21:10) and protects the rights of the firstborn son even if he is born to the hated wife (Deut. 21:15–17). Hatred may be expressed by either party withholding conjugal relations. This probably lies behind the description in Gen. 29:31 of Jacob hating Leah (some translations say “unloved”).

Rejection, favoritism, or preference may be called “hate,” as in the case of a nonpreferred wife in a polygamous marriage, in not choosing Esau to continue the covenant line (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), or in not having a greater love for Christ than anything else (Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).

Mother

Although essentially characterized by bearing offspring, a mother is associated with much more in the Bible. Especially prominent are the characteristic ways in which a mother relates to her children: she tends to their needs (1 Thess. 2:7), looks after their welfare (1 Kings 3:16–27), comforts them (Ps. 131:2), and instructs them (Prov. 1:8; 31:1).

Motherhood is held in high regard. Bearing a child is an occasion for rejoicing (Gen. 4:1; Ps. 113:9). A virtuous and industrious mother is praised by her children and husband alike (Prov. 31:28). The Bible describes a mother both crowning a king (Song 3:11) and sitting beside his throne (1 Kings 2:19). The death of a mother brings extreme sorrow (Gen. 24:67; Ps. 35:14). Furthermore, God’s promises are often associated with the birth of a child (e.g., Gen. 3:15; 12:2–3; Judg. 13:3; Isa. 7:14). Mary is blessed among women as the mother of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:42–45). Finally, the Bible protects the dignity of a mother as it does that of the father. The law requires honor and reverence for both father and mother (Exod. 20:12; Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16) and condemns to death those who strike or curse either parent (Exod. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9).

There is also great concern that adult children look after the welfare of their parents as a means of honoring them. David makes provisions for his parents as he flees from Saul (1 Sam. 22:3–4). Jesus condemns the Pharisees and the scribes for taking the resources due their parents and offering them as a gift to God instead (Matt. 15:4–6). Even Jesus’ final act upon the cross is to ensure the welfare of his mother by defining her relationship with the Beloved Disciple as mother and son (John 19:26–27). On the other hand, Jesus makes clear that concern for one’s family is subordinate to discipleship to him (Matt. 10:37; Mark 3:35; Luke 14:26).

The word “mother” also carries symbolic or metaphorical senses. Sometimes the “mother” is a fitting example of other things or persons like it, such as Babylon the Great as the mother of prostitutes and earthly abominations (Rev. 17:5). In the extended analogy between Hosea’s marriage and God’s relationship to Israel, the nation is called a “mother,” and its inhabitants are her “children” (Hos. 2:4; 4:5; cf. Isa. 50:1; Jer. 50:12). The image of a mother may also refer to a large city (2 Sam. 20:19; Gal. 4:26).

Travel

Until the twentieth century, traveling farther than a week’s distance from home was dangerous and expensive. We should not overstate the difficulty or risks of travel then, but certainly it was unlike today. Since virtually every region had its own currency, travelers carried cash and were at risk from thieves, money changers, innkeepers, slavers, and others who preyed upon travelers, as well as from the natural dangers of storms, floods, early snows, and so forth. Outside of cities, there was little law enforcement for the typical traveler (Ezra 8:22). Family was often one’s only defender against injustice (Gen. 14:12–16; Ps. 127:3–5).

For travelers in the biblical world, improvement was slow and gradual. During the time of the patriarchs, travelers faced poor roads, bandits, and no security other than what they could provide themselves (Gen. 14:14). Later Assyrian documents complain of difficult roads. Sargon II (r. 722–705 BC) boasted, “I advanced over inaccessible paths (in) steep and terrifying places” (ARAB 2:25–26). Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC) tells of having to travel on foot because the road was too steep for his litter (ARAB 2:122–23). Persian roads improved modestly, but Herodotus probably is exaggerating the improvements (Hist. 8.98), as Xenophon seems to indicate (Anab. 1.2.25). Many sources speak of bandits (Ezra 8:31; Hos. 6:9). Thus, safe travel or good roads became a metaphor for peace. When ancient kings bragged, it often was about roads they had built or how the roads were now safe. The arrival of the kingdom of God was symbolized by repairing the road (Isa. 40:3–5; Luke 3:4–6).

Major improvements came with the Roman Empire. For the first (and last) time, a traveler could go from the Euphrates to Egypt to Britain on well-policed roads and sea lanes under one’s own government. Enforced law and standardized, trustworthy coinage had distinct advantages (Isa. 33:8; Matt. 22:15–22).

Running empires required traveling. Envoys (Jer. 27:3), tax collectors (Dan. 11:20), and overseers (1 Kings 5:13–17), as well as armies, moved about on imperial business. While farmers and local merchants traveled limited distances to sell their wares (usually to the closest large city), fortunes could be made by the more adventuresome merchant willing to take the greater risks of traveling farther distances (Gen. 37:28; 1 Kings 10; Job 6:19; Prov. 31:14; Isa. 23:8; Matt. 13:45). The ancient world also saw individuals doing a great deal of local travel (less than sixty miles), usually connected to business (Prov. 31:14), religious festivals (1 Sam. 1; John 10), and family (Gen. 50:1–14; 2 Kings 8:29; Luke 1:39; John 2:1); often the three were woven together.

Travel in the ancient world was by sea or land. Except for the wealthy, this meant booking passage or walking. Sentimental images of a pregnant Mary riding a donkey to Bethlehem or of the apostle Paul doing missionary travels on horseback are likely fiction. Although there is some evidence of women traveling on donkeys (Josh. 15:18; 1 Sam. 25:20, 23; 2 Sam. 16:1–2), the stories are of prominent women or unusual occasions; it should not be assumed to be normative. Obviously, the infirm rode when required to travel, but they preferred not to travel (2 Sam. 19:26–37). The wealthiest used private transport (Acts 8:27–28). We have references to travel by donkey, mule, camel, horse, cart, litter, and chariot, but ordinary people walked. Typically, a good day’s walk was twenty miles; sea travel was by daylight and averaged roughly the same. Calculating how long it took someone to travel, though, is not merely a matter of math. Both sea and land travelers were fair-weather travelers, usually between June and September. On a long journey, one had to plan where to “winter.” Ancient travelers had to make their travel plans around the seasons.

Travel by Land

Roads. Until the Romans, a “road” was merely a cleared path. They were ungraded and often impassable in wet weather. Nonetheless, they followed a distinct route, marked by “guideposts” (Jer. 31:21). In the ancient world, major roads ran east-west from Syria into Mesopotamia. North-south roads connected Syria to Egypt, through Palestine. The Assyrian army invaded Israel by traveling west on the road as far as Syria and then turning south. The battles fought in Gen. 14 were to control the north-south road (and thus trade). Solomon built wealth by controlling this trade (2 Chron. 9:14). Three major roads ran north-south through Israel. (1) The King’s Highway (Num. 20:17) ran through the eastern region, from Damascus through the eastern highlands of the Transjordan and down to the Gulf of Aqaba, where Solomon maintained a port (2 Chron. 8:17). (2) The central (or Sinai) road ran from Sidon south to Tyre, Akko, Shechem, Jerusalem, Hebron, Beersheba, Kadesh Barnea, into the Negev, and on to Egypt. (3) The Sea Road (Via Maris) ran from Damascus to Hazor through the Valley of Jezreel (the Plain of Esdraelon through the Megiddo Pass), down the coast of Israel through Gaza and into Egypt. Taking Megiddo meant controlling this road and the trade. The Egyptians (Thutmose III) defeated the Canaanites and took this road around 1468 BC. David captured it about 1000 BC. Josiah died defending this road against the Egyptians (Necho II) in 609 BC.

The Greeks extended a major road connecting through Asia Minor to the ancient road running into Mesopotamia. The Romans built roads of flat stone placed upon foundations. Parts of these roads are still in use today. From Rome they built to the sea (Via Ostiensis, Via Portuensis), to the south (Via Appia), to the west (Via Aurelia), to the north (Via Flaminia), to the Adriatic (Via Salaria, Via Valeria), and to the east (Via Ignatia) connecting Rome to Greece and thus to the rest of the biblical world.

Lodgings. Land travel necessitated lodgings. The wealthy near Rome often had homes along the common routes that they plied. Slaves ran ahead to announce that the master was coming. Friends and those on the master’s business likely used these homes as well when traveling. When off the normal route, an aristocrat traveled with a retinue of servants, wagons, and tents to enable a well-equipped (and secure) camp each evening. The ordinary traveler had no extra homes or entourages. Groups large enough for safety could camp near town. Individuals relied upon hospitality in town. Those individual travelers unfortunate to lack any kinship with townsfolk often had no recourse but inns. Petronius (Sat. 94–97) tells a seamy story of misadventures in the roadside inns of his day. Archaeology and literature describe ill-kept dumps involving disreputable proprietors, questionable guests, and plenty of loose morals. Ancient Hebrews and early Christians emphasized hospitality (Gen. 19:1–2; Judg. 19:11–20; Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9; 3 John 8).

Distance and duration. Using the distances between ancient stopping places, travel records, and comments in literary sources, scholars generally agree that a normal walking traveler could expect to cover twenty miles in a day. Peter’s trip from Joppa to Caesarea (about forty miles) took two days (Acts 10:23–30). Travelers using beasts of burden generally covered the same distance. Chariots averaged a bit better, perhaps twenty-five to thirty miles per day. Whether they actually traveled farther or just stopped earlier for the night is debatable. Horseback was intended for speed and could easily average fifty miles per day. Yet we must avoid the mistake of calculating travel time between places by simple math. While such calculations generally hold true for one- or two-day journeys (Acts 10), longer journeys encountered delays. Towns along main roads were commonly spaced a day’s walk apart. Yet it is unwise to assume that a traveler always left the next morning after an overnight stay. Jesus warned his traveling preachers against such rudeness (Luke 10:5–7). Moreover, the host likely provided the food supplies and extra funds for the traveler’s next walk (3 John 5–8; Did. 11.5–6). Certainly, Jewish travelers were affected by Sabbaths and feasts. Not only would they not travel on those days, but also they likely would delay or rush to reach a particular location (Acts 20:2–5, 16; 1 Cor. 16:8). Ancients traveled according to a different tempo than modern Westerners.

Seasons caused more serious delays. When traveling season ended, travelers were forced to spend the winter wherever they were at that time. If possible, they did not leave this to chance but rather planned where to “winter” (Jer. 36:22; Acts 27:12; 1 Cor. 16:6; Titus 3:12). Terrain was a serious consideration. Mountain passes and river fords were obvious factors, and ancients often took the easier (or safer) though longer path. Hence, there were three roads leading from Perga to Pisidian Antioch, the longest (western) being the safest and easiest. Uphill journeys, snow-blocked passes, and flash floods slowed ancient travelers, sometimes stranding them longer than their planned supplies would last (2 Cor. 6:5).

Traveling in groups. Since travelers carried money, they avoided traveling alone or in very small groups. (The so-called wise men of Matt. 2:1–12 almost certainly would have been waylaid had there been only three of them.) Commonly, travelers gathered in the agora (marketplace) early in the morning looking for fellow travelers heading their way, thus making traveling companions of those with whom they might not normally associate (Luke 9:57; 14:25). It was also common for travelers to join others along the road (Luke 24:13–16; Acts 8:27–30).

Travel by Sea

Ships. Almost all ancient ships were wooden. A “fast ship” was not necessarily a sleeker mode, but a dry one. Ideally, ships were stored out of the water during winter. Waterlogged ships were naturally slower.

No biblical empire was worth its salt unless it had naval supremacy in the Mediterranean Sea. Sailing vessels were at the mercy of the wind, so military ships meant galley ships. Rowing allowed captains to move without the wind. Today, we tend to imagine rowers like the “galley slaves” of the Middle Ages. Ancient rowers, however, were honored soldiers. Ships rammed each other in battle, and skill at the oar often meant the difference between victory and death. Once the enemy was rammed, rowers sprang up from their oars and fought hand to hand.

Piracy and commerce. No one could claim dominance of the sea without controlling piracy. The Roman navy, for the first time in history, managed to virtually eliminate piracy. Roman archers and slingers rained destruction as they drew near pirate vessels. Catapults later were added for heavy artillery. Finally, firepots slung out on long poles set fire to the enemy’s ship, which the Romans then rammed and boarded.

With the taming of the Mediterranean, commercial shipping exploded in growth. Transporting cargo, passengers, and dispatches became profitable business. Smaller ships (like a Galilean fishing boat) depended upon oars, with a small sail as an auxiliary. Larger merchant ships depended more on sails. Sailing ships, with favorable winds, probably averaged between two and four miles per hour, but only half that with unfavorable winds. Ancient ships hugged coastlines and avoided bad weather.

Common cargo ships carried an average of about 250 tons of cargo and/or passengers and ranged from 70 to 150 feet in length. Those carrying 350 to 500 tons were considered large but not rare. It is thought that the grain ships in Paul’s day (as in Acts 27) routinely were three-decked, 180 feet long, carried 1,300 tons, and took over a week to unload.

Traveling by ship. Although cargo ships also carried passengers, some ships were primarily for passengers. Josephus, on an unsuccessful attempt to sail to Rome, was on a ship with six hundred passengers (Josephus, Life 15). Sallust, a Roman historian, mentions a cohort (about 600 men) traveling on one transport ship (Hist. 3.8). Paul’s ship to Rome had 276 aboard (Acts 27:37). Acts gives the impression that this ship left too late in the season. Aside from those compelled by Rome, likely only the brave or the desperate would book such passage. Thus, we should not assume that the ship was fully booked.

Like land travel, however, sea travel also was restricted by season. In the eastern half of the Mediterranean, the wind blows from the northwest toward the southeast persistently from June to September, marking the favorable sailing season. Vegetius (Mil. 4.39) writes, “From the 6th day before the kalends of June [May 27] until the rising of Arcturus, that is until the 18th before the kalends of October [Sept. 14], is believed to be the safe period of navigation. . . . From then up to the 3rd before the ides of November, navigation is uncertain. . . . From the 3rd before the ides of November to the 6th before the ides of March, the seas are closed.” Many ancient writers indicated that sea travel in the winter was trecherous.

A person traveling by sea went first to the docks to inquire about ships headed to the desired destination. Harbor managers, dockhands, sailors, or others pointed inquirers toward appropriate ships. After negotiating with a particular ship’s purser, whose job was to book passengers (and guard against stowaways), a passenger was told what day and time to be aboard. The lowest level of ships held the ballast (usually sand or stone) and the bilgewater. Decking over it held cargo. Some ships berthed the cheapest passengers in this area, what we now refer to as steerage (Lucian observes that such passengers were “not even able to stretch their legs on the bare boards alongside the bilgewater” [Jupp. trag. 48]). Larger freighters had another deck above this that may have housed some passengers. In general, however, travelers in Paul’s day (like all travelers up until modern times) camped above deck (some with tents). Only the very wealthy rented cabins (P.Zen. 10). Shipwrecks and pirates were not the only dangers. A man cautioned his wife, “When you come, bring your gold ornaments, but do not wear them on the boat” (P.Mich. 3.214 [see also 8.468]). Then as now, tossing someone overboard left a clean crime scene (Jon. 1:15; cf. Acts 20:3).

Summary

Most biblical characters, like their peers, rarely traveled far from home. It is commonly estimated that Jesus’ ministry encompassed a distance no greater than one hundred miles from his home. His apostles, though, took advantage of the travel benefits of the Roman Empire. Paul was a far more experienced traveler than most, both by land and sea (Acts 27:9–10, 30–32), although he appears to have pushed the limits of safety on occasion. He mentions “sleepless nights and hunger” (2 Cor. 6:5) as well as being “in danger from rivers” and bandits (2 Cor. 11:26). In addition to what is reported in Acts 27, Paul was shipwrecked at least three other times (2 Cor. 11:25). Whether by land or sea, travel in ancient times was not for the fainthearted.

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because Luke 14:25-35 is mentioned in the definition.

Field

An unenclosed, cultivated parcel of land (Gen. 31:4; 34:7). A field may be distinguished from the uncultivated wilderness (Gen. 33:19; 36:35), vineyards (Num. 22:23–24), and cities (Deut. 28:3, 16), which are surrounded by walls. Stones demarcated fields (Deut. 27:17). In the case of adjoining fields, they often were separated by public paths (Matt. 13:4 pars.). For protection, many fields had watchtowers (Luke 14:28–30). Farmers often sowed a mixed crop, including fig trees for shade (1 Kings 4:25; Isa. 28:25). The most valuable crops, usually wheat, were planted toward the center. Pious Jews left the corners of their fields ungleaned for the poor. The rabbis later quantified the corners (Heb. pe’ah) as one-sixtieth of the field’s yield. Ruth took advantage of this provision, as did Jesus’ disciples (Ruth 2:1–7; Matt. 12:1–2 pars.).

Financial Planning

Little, if anything, in the Bible directly addresses financial planning, but some principles are relevant. The obvious need for basic financial planning was used by Jesus as an illustration for the cost of discipleship: those who seek to build a tower must count the cost before they begin (Luke 14:28). The motivation for financial planning ought not to be fear or anxiety (Matt. 6:25–26), for God can be trusted to provide. Appropriate motivations for good financial planning include the desire to store up wealth as an inheritance for one’s children (Ps. 17:14), to provide for one’s household (1 Tim. 5:8), and to avoid the dangers of debt and dependence on others (1 Thess. 4:11–12).

Financial planning ought not to be considered a guarantee of wealth, since the future is unknown to people, and the success of any venture is dependent upon God’s will (James 4:13–15). Neither should storing up wealth be viewed as a goal in its own right, for such wealth will be of no ultimate benefit to its owner (Ps. 49:10; Prov. 11:4). Hoarded wealth will only rot away (James 5:2–3); wealth is given by God to be used (Luke 16:11). In particular, the acquisition of wealth by ungodly means will not benefit its owner and will end up in the hands of the righteous, although this may not occur until a future generation (Prov. 13:22; 28:8).

Hatred

A feeling of animosity, a disposition toward hostility, rejection, or negative favoritism.

Jesus Christ

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

Marriage

An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationship between a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.

Theology of Marriage

The biblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, which establishes a number of important points relating to marriage.

First, in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy within creation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitude is found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the careful search expressed by having the man name each of them) but in a creature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude: woman. She is created from his “rib” (a better translation is “side”), so that she is more like him than any of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rather a complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable for him,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy God had previously identified.

Second, the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by which to fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children), for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to this alone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational and social, and that isolation is not good, quite aside from considerations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage is employed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his people (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from the notion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not be considered the primary purpose of marriage.

Third, Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman in terms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula used with reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modern English expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (other translations use “cleave”) and “one flesh” are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not the only, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24 expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as the antithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. These terms (“leave” or “forsake,” “be united” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere in covenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of people in the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty (Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2 Sam. 20:2; 1 Kings 11:2). It is also frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22; 13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used of breaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17, 19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in the context of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.

The implication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united” to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, the covenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the new relationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantal relationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new family unit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels the kinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthy that Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family is formed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on the priority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularly striking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature of inheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ household after marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughters would leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.

Fourth, the description of the woman as the man’s “helper” cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role was either subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although the term is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also used of subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determine the relative status of the helper aside from the use of the term itself.

Marriage in the Old Testament

The Bible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirements for marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce), although it does record some details of specific marriages from which some insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages often were established through an arrangement between the parents of the husband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parents of his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears to be some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife (e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the woman is sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formal certificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples of marriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidence that marriage within Israel required certification, although there is no explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to the rabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involved feasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride being accompanied to her home in a festive procession that included music and singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronounced over the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth 4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’s virginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard against false accusations by a husband seeking divorce.

Another aspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although not legislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price” (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1 Sam. 18:25), as well as the provision of a dowry (1 Kings 9:16). The former was a payment made by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, the latter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, the former appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price, at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife be divorced.

The Bible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those being married, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differ significantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East, where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reached puberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older. Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, and generally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosen from within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9; 27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some, but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permits Israelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners of war). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Moses married a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz married Ruth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legal sanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke 14:26; 18:29).

In spite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancient world in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as both an ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouse clearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflected in the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as in stories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3; 1 Sam. 18:20).

Socially, marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world, for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house of either her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed down the male line, women without connection to the house of a man were in a very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issue in the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just on marriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see also Firstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage in ancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a number of instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). This afforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, Levirate Marriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should be noted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor the related acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundation for marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflect the biblical ideal for marriage.

The fundamental importance of the marriage relationship is also highlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g., Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).

Marriage in the New Testament

Jesus reinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine origin and lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as its inviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’ assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage is surprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as to why there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it is perhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen. 2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in the age to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found in marriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and all others.

Paul elaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christian marriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in some respects (1 Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting some asymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and the church in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marry within the church (2 Cor. 6:14–18, although this passage is not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married to nonbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful to their spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children (1 Cor. 7:10–16).

The NT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day, including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John 2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt. 22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt. 25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).

Symbolic Use of Marriage

Marriage is used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between God and his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize the intimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and his chosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenant is broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to the use of divorce language to describe God’s treatment of unfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery and promiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16; 23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphic representation of God’s relationship with his people and, in particular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out the anticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “You will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use of marriage to image the relationship between God and his people also reflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of the relationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.

The NT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as the husband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph. 5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity by explicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’s use of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolic teaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12), as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining the behavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35). Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriage between the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).

Nativity of Christ

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Jesus’ Life

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

Parable

The word “parable” is used to speak of a particular literary form that communicates indirectly by means of comparative language, often for the purpose of challenging the listener to accept or reject a new way of thinking about a particular matter. Parables regularly incorporate concrete and accessible images from the daily life of the audience, and often they are terse and pointed, mentioning only the details relevant for an effective comparison. However, any attempt to define the term “parable” in a clear and concise way is complicated by the fact that both the Hebrew (mashal) and the Greek (parabolē) words regularly translated by the English word “parable” have much broader connotations. For instance, in the OT mashal can designate proverbs (Prov. 1:1), riddles (Ezek. 17:2), prophetic utterances (Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23), and sayings (1 Sam. 10:12); similarly, in the NT parabolē denotes proverbs (Luke 4:23), riddles (Mark 3:23), analogies (Mark 7:17), and more. Therefore, no comprehensive definition of parables is agreed upon by biblical scholars, and very little said about parables in general will apply to every parable.

Parables in the Bible

Although not designated with the Hebrew word mashal, the story of the trees (Judg. 9:7–15) and the story of the ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12:1–4) may be considered to be parables. Like many parables, the story about the ewe lamb told by Nathan prompts its audience, in this case David, to condemn the actions of a character in the parable before being confronted with the fact that the character and his conduct are symbolic of David himself. The parable is the vehicle used to bring about self-condemnation of its audience.

Although Jesus is not the only speaker of parables in the ancient world, the Gospels narrate a tremendous number of parables within his teaching. The major parables of Jesus are listed in table 4. The diversity of form represented in this list is striking. Some of the parables consist of short, relatively simple comparisons that lack the development of any significant story line. This is true, for instance, of the parables of the mustard seed, yeast, hidden treasure, and the pearl. Each of these offers a simple simile to explain some feature of the kingdom of God, a frequent topic in Jesus’ parables, and may include an additional sentence of clarification.

Table 4. Major Parables of Jesus

Wise and foolish builders (Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:46-49)

Sower and the soils (Matt. 13:3–8, 18–23; Mark 4:3–8, 14–20; Luke 8:5–8, 11–15)

Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43)

Mustard seed (Matt. 13:31–32; Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:18–19)

Yeast (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20-21)

Hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)

Net (Matt. 13:47-50)

Lost sheep (Matt. 18:12-14; Luke 15:4-7)

Unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23-35)

Workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16)

Two sons (Matt. 21:28-32)

Wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33–44; Mark 12:1–11; Luke 20:9–18)

Wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2-14)

Faithful and wise servant (Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)

Ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)

Talents (Matt. 25:14–30; Luke 19:12–27)

Sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46)

Growing seeds (Mark 4:26-29)

Money lender (Luke 7:41-47)

Good Samritan (Luke 10:30-37)

Friend in need (Luke 11:5-8)

Rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)

Unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)

Lowest seat (Luke 14:7-14)

Great banquet (Luke 14:16-24)

Cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33)

Lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)

Lost (prodigal) son (Luke 15:11-32)

Shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8)

Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Persistent widow (Luke 18:2-8)

Pharisee and tax collector (Luke 18:10-14)

Parables such as the good Samaritan and the prodigal son, on the other hand, are significantly longer, contain developed plots, and present several central characters. Stories of this sort may use the characters as examples of behavior to be either emulated or avoided, as in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Such parables may remain open-ended in an attempt to force the listeners into a decision about what should happen (the unfruitful fig tree), or they may include a clear, concluding explanation that leaves no doubt as to how the audience should change their belief or behavior as a result of the parable’s teaching (the moneylender). The degree to which each of these parables directly addresses the intended audience and the intended topic can vary greatly. For instance, although the parable of the rich fool directly addresses the subject matter of material wealth, the anonymity of the rich man in the story does not openly condemn any particular member of Jesus’ audience. Alternatively, a parable may treat a subject that differs from the intended one and expect the listener to transfer the lesson to another topic. This is the case with the parable of the weeds, which speaks explicitly about farming. Nonetheless, when the disciples seek an explanation of this parable, Jesus indicates that it is to be understood as speaking about that feature of the kingdom of heaven whereby the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one intermingle in the world until the end of the age, when the sons of the evil one will be separated to face a fiery judgment (Matt. 13:36–43).

Other parables, such as that of the lost sheep, revolve around a central question posed to the listeners. By asking “who among you” would behave in the way described, the parable anticipates a negative response that asserts that no one would act in the manner detailed in the parable. The NIV frequently inserts the phrase “suppose one of you” in places where the introductory question “who among you” appears in Greek.

Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables

It is quite clear that Jesus regularly employed parables in his teaching, but his reason for doing so is less evident. Jesus’ own somewhat perplexing statement in Mark 4:10–12 indicates that his parables have the dual purpose of both revealing and concealing the secret of the kingdom, but one may wonder how it is that parables perform both functions simultaneously. If the goal of comparative language is to make clearer a concept or idea that is difficult, then certainly Jesus’ parables function in this way. Through the simple, accessible, and concrete word pictures that are his parables, Jesus discloses many characteristics and features of the kingdom of God, which is at best something of an enigma to his audience. By speaking to the crowds, albeit at times in an exaggerated fashion, about the things that they know, such as farming, banquets, baking, and other elements of everyday life, Jesus expands their understanding of what they do not know. However, the indirect quality of parables simultaneously blocks spontaneous understanding and therefore requires the audience to engage in additional reflection to ensure that they have truly grasped what is being taught. Likewise, the ability to address an issue by slyly sneaking up on it from behind results in parables that initially conceal their true purpose of convincing the listeners of a new way of thinking or behaving such that the conviction they are meant to induce comes with a surprise kick at the end.

Interpretation of Parables

Interpretation over the centuries. Throughout church history until the nineteenth century, parables were widely interpreted by means of the allegorical method. That is, all the surface details of parables were identified as symbols of some deeper spiritual truth. A classic example of allegorizing is Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan, whereby he interpreted surface details of the text according to allegorical equations (see table 5). Allegorical interpretations of the same parable by other Christians, however, did not always result in the same interpretations of the symbols. For this reason, most scholars today reject the excessive allegorization of Augustine and others throughout church history. However, how many details in a parable, if any, are to be interpreted allegorically remains a central question in parable interpretation. For instance, in the parable of the mustard seed, are the mustard seed and the plant that it produces allegories for the unobtrusive beginnings yet manifest results of the kingdom? If so, what then of the man and the birds also mentioned in the parable? Are they symbols of a deeper spiritual truth such that the man is to be equated with God, or are they included only to augment the teaching of the parable such that the birds merely highlight the extreme size of the tree into which the seed has grown?

Table 5. Augustine’s Allegorical Interpretation of the Good Samaritan

Details in the Parable and its Allegorical Equivalent:

The man = Adam

Jerusalem = The heavenly city

Jericho = The moon (a symbol of mortality)

The robbers = The devil

Beating the man = Persuading him to sin

Priest and Levite = The Old Testament priesthood

Samaritan = Christ

Binding of wounds = Restraint of sin

Oil = Comfort of hope

Animal = Incarnation

Inn = Church

Innkeeper = Apostle Paul

The work of the German scholar Adolf Jülicher at the end of the nineteenth century has widely affected parable interpretation since that time. Jülicher asserted that parables are not allegories and therefore should not be interpreted allegorically at all. Instead, he argued that parables have only one main point, normally a general, religious statement. Interpreters since Jülicher continue to debate how much of a parable is significant and how many points of correspondence are intended. More-recent views have posited that Jülicher went too far in maintaining a strict distinction between parable and allegory, and many interpreters believe that allegorical elements are present in parables, with perhaps the main characters in a parable being the most likely candidates for allegorical interpretation. This renewed openness to allegorical features in parables is due in part to the recognition that the Gospels record Jesus’ own tendency to offer allegorical interpretations of his parables when his disciples inquire as to their meaning. This is most clearly seen in the parable of the sower and the soils, which includes details such as seed, birds, the sun, and thorns. Jesus reveals that the seed is to be interpreted as the message about the kingdom, the birds stand for the evil one, the sun is representative of persecution because of the gospel, and the thorns indicate worries and wealth (Matt. 13:18–23).

Guidelines for interpreting parables. It is generally best to recognize that not all parables are identical, and that one should consider several possible interpretive strategies before determining which approach best fits any given parable. Nonetheless, some broad guidelines for the interpretation of parables include the following:

1. The characters and plots within parables are literary creations and are not historical. The parable of the lost sheep is not a historical rec-ord of a certain shepherd whose sheep went missing. No actual invitation was issued for the great banquet in the parable. Rather, in a parable the listener is brought into a narrative world controlled by the storyteller and by implication has no need for details that the speaker fails to provide. Therefore, it does not matter whether the shepherd himself was at fault in the loss of the sheep, and the choice of food set before the banquet guests is inconsequential.

2. Parables often follow the principle of end stress. Interpreters should carefully consider how the parable ends when determining the meaning the parable is intended to convey. At times an explanatory conclusion to the parable is included and may be helpful in directing the reader toward the topic that is really being addressed. This is the case in the parable of the two sons, in which Jesus’ concluding explanation identifies tax collectors and prostitutes as those who are entering the kingdom ahead of those who have received John’s prophetic message but failed to accept it.

Recent studies on parables that reflect issues raised by two fields of study respectively known as form criticism and redaction criticism are likely to question the accuracy of such concluding statements as well as any introductory comments to parables that may also be presented in the Gospel text. Many scholars ask if and to what extent the Gospel writers made changes to the parables that they record. They wonder whether it is possible to discern the original context and circumstance in which Jesus relayed his parables, or whether the details of the original context had been forgotten by the time that the evangelists wrote. Could it be that any introductory and concluding comments included with some parables are not authentic to Jesus’ ministry but instead reflect issues that arose in the early church? In spite of the doubts of some, more-conservative scholars have presented arguments for the continued trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts about Jesus’ teaching including introductory or concluding statements associated with his parables.

3. Look for the use of OT symbols in Jesus’ parables. The parables of Jesus and the parables recorded in other rabbinical literature are replete with similar figures and images. Kings, banquets, weddings, farmers, debtors, and more appear with frequency; they perhaps developed into stock images to be used in stories in the ancient world. If such details appear in a parable, the interpreter should consider strongly whether some allegorical meaning is intended whereby a kingly figure represents God, a son represents the people of God, and a banquet indicates a time of coming judgment or reward.

4. Interpreters should exercise extreme caution regarding doctrinal teaching drawn from a parable, particularly if such doctrine cannot be confirmed by the theological teaching found in a nonparabolic portion of Scripture. For instance, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is one to conclude that conversations can occur between the dead who reside in hell and those who reside in heaven? Likewise, should one learn that it is possible for the deceased human to be sent back to the living with a message from God? These doctrinal issues seem to be outside the range of teaching intended by the parable, and support for these ideas cannot be found in other biblical texts.

5. In recognition of the indirect nature of the communication in parables, some interpreters question whether a parable’s meaning can be reproduced in propositional language. In other words, can the meaning of a parable be expressed in nonparabolic language, or is some necessary component lost when one changes the form? Similarly, is it possible for people who have heard the story of the good Samaritan repeatedly to be struck by the confrontational force that was central to its initial reception? Not only are the images of Samaritans and Levites foreign to the modern listener, but also the familiarity with the story that has resulted from its retelling over time has domesticated the parable such that the details that were meant to shock and surprise are now anticipated and predictable. In this way, are parables like jokes that have been repeated too many times until one becomes inoculated against the punch line? Because of these concerns about the inability of today’s listeners to truly hear the parable as it was meant to be heard, some interpreters may wish to consider how it could be recast with images common to today’s audience and retold in such a way that the listeners experience the surprising twist that the initial audiences felt.

Polygamy

An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationship between a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.

Theology of Marriage

The biblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, which establishes a number of important points relating to marriage.

Marriage in the Old Testament

The fundamental importance of the marriage relationship is also highlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g., Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).

Marriage in the New Testament

Symbolic Use of Marriage

Transportation and Travel

Travel by Land

Travel by Sea

Summary

Showing 1 to 50 of74 results

1. Bearing The Cross

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

At long last, Laura McDermott had fulfilled her lifelong dream. All she could ever think of doing with her life since she was a kid was to be a doctor. Now no one in the McDermott family had ever been to college before, let alone medical school. Her parents, therefore, were constantly reminding her of the obstacles in her path. "Are you sure you know what you are getting into?" her parents would quiz her periodically. Laura's friends pointed to other obstacles. "Are you sure you want to put yourself through that much schooling? It's really hard work. Is it worth it?"

Laura McDermott persisted. She got through college and medical school. Laura McDermott was a doctor at last. She had lived her dream. But the dream soon turned into a nightmare. Dr. McDermott was hired to work with a group of physicians. That's exactly as she had imagined it. She would be one of two general practitioners in a group which included many specialists as well. An ideal work environment she thought. And it started out well. Soon enough, however, problems began to emerge.

The first problem that faced Dr. McDermott was that she was one of only two women doctors on the clinic staff. The other G.P. was a man with a few years' experience. It became clear to her quite soon that he was getting far more referrals than she was from the other physicians at the clinic. What was even worse, however, was that when she referred patients to some of the specialists they would quite often check out her referral with the other G.P. Her peers clearly did not trust her judgment.

Laura did not know what to make of this situation. Was it because she was young that this happened or because she was a woman? She tried to find out. She asked hard questions around the clinic. But she got no straight answers. It was like a conspiracy of silence had formed around her. Dr. McDermott was devastated.

The other problem was that she just didn't like some of the doctors with whom she worked. They were just not nice people she thought. Friction was in the air at the clinic all the time because of the personalities that worked there. It was not a good work atmosphere. She hated to go to work each day. The whole situation was just awful.

The situation got so bad, in fact, that Dr. McDermott just had to talk to somebody about it. At her church she had met and made friends with another woman about her age, Doris Pagel, who worked for the local chamber of commerce. Laura thought that Doris might have some insights for her about the kind of people that made up their town. Maybe she had the situation figured out all wrong. She hoped Doris could help.

Dr. McDermott took Doris Pagel out for dinner one night and told her sad tale. Doris' first reaction caught Laura by surprise. "Nobody ever said being a doctor would be easy," she said. Laura assured Doris that she knew that. It's just that so many other things had entered the picture that surprised her with the reality of just how hard it was for her to serve God by living out her vocation as a doctor.

"Well you know," said Doris, "I read somewhere that we don't choose our own crosses. God just lays crosses upon us in the midst of our attempts to serve. Through our struggles God is often at work molding us into the kind of person God wants us to be.""

2. In a Dark Cave

Illustration

John R. Steward

A man was once put in a dark cave. He was sentenced to die in the cave unless he could find his way out. The cave was 100 yards by 100 yards and he was told that there really was a way out.

The cave was sealed by a very large rock. After the cave was sealed the prisoner was allowed to take off his blindfold. In the midst of the darkness he walked around the cave. He had food, but it was bread and water which would only last for thirty days. The food was lowered to him from a hole in the ceiling of the cave which was about eighteen feet high. The opening was only one foot in diameter.

The man investigated the cave and soon discovered that there was a pile of rocks. He quickly determined that if he could build up the pile of rocks even higher, perhaps he could escape. By calculating both his height and his reach he believed that he needed to build the mound ten feet high.

Every moment was devoted to finding rocks and placing them in the pile. After two weeks he had built the mound to about six feet. He figured that over the next two weeks he could complete the task before the food would run out. He had not taken into account that he had already used up most of the rocks in the cave. Now he would have to use the rocks that were left and certainly more dirt. He had nothing with which to dig but his bare hands. After the next two weeks had passed he had only built the mound to nine-and-a-half feet; he thought that he could perhaps reach the opening if he were to jump. At this point he was near exhaustion. As he tried to jump and reach the opening he fell. Now he was too weak to get up and try again and in two days he was dead.

When they came to remove his body from the cave, they removed the large stone that covered the entrance, and the light that poured in revealed everything. In the light it was evident that there was an opening in the wall of the cave at ground level. The hole in the wall was the beginning of a tunnel that traveled for 200 feet and led to freedom. The captured man had so focused on the opening above that he never thought that there could be another way out of the cave. The opening was right next to the mound that he had been building. The trouble was that the opening on the ground level was in the darkness and did not seem possible to him.

Too often people reject Jesus as a way to freedom because it seems too easy or impractical. Sometimes he is rejected because it seems too dark and difficult. We think that we can do it by our own efforts and that we do not need his help. Today he asks us to let go of all of our attempts to find freedom and follow him.

Adapted from John Bradshaw, Healing the Shame that Binds (Deerfield Beach, Florida: Health Communications, Inc.), p. 117.

3. Counting the Cost in Marriage

Illustration

Donald Dotterer

In order to live life fully and happily, we must be people who are able to count the cost in almost every area of living.

Marriage is one of those institutions which demands a high personal cost. The church's wedding ritual begins with these sobering words, words that are so often taken too lightly. It says, marriage is "not to be entered into unadvisedly, but reverently, discreetly, and in the fear of God." Each person makes a covenant to love, comfort, honor and take care of the other in sickness and in health. That can be a difficult commitment to keep if a spouse becomes critically ill or severely disabled. The husband and wife agree to stay with each other "for better, for worse, for richer for poorer ... till death do us part." A man and woman must count the cost of what they are getting into in marriage.

So it is also with having children. Did you see a recent letter to Ann Landers in the paper? It struck a chord with this expectant father heading toward his 40th birthday. The writer was talking about the mixed blessings of raising children in your 40s and 50s. It is true, I think, that an older father is more patient, and in a way, more appreciative of children.

However, as this letter-writer rightly suggests, raising children at a later age is also more difficult in many ways. Men or women in their 40s and 50s generally have a lower energy level, so taking the kids to Little League, attending PTA meetings and so forth tires parents much more.

Indeed, there are tremendous physical, emotional, and financial costs to raising children. Before having them, a couple should count the cost. There are just too many lonely and neglected and deprived children out there with parents who have not done so.

4. Saddam Hussein's Mistake

Illustration

Donald Dotterer

In the scripture lesson, Jesus makes a point about preparedness with an illustration. He asks his audience, "What king, preparing to go to battle against another king, would not first sit down and consider whether or not his army of 10,000 men would be able to fight successfully against 20,000?"

This is the mistake that Saddam Hussein made against the Coalition of Nations, which opposed his invasion of Kuwait. Hussein was crushed, because he did not carefully count the cost of his aggression.

5. Are You God's Wife?

Illustration

A little boy about 10 years old was standing before a shoe store on the roadway, barefooted, peering through the window, and shivering with cold. A lady approached the boy and said, “My little fellow, why are you looking so earnestly in that window?”

“I was asking God to give me a pair of shoes,” was the boys reply.

The lady took him by the hand and went into the store and asked the clerk to get half a dozen pairs of socks for the boy. She then asked if he could give her a basin of water and a towel. He quickly brought them to her. She took the little guy to the back part of the store and removing her gloves, knelt down, washed his little feet, and dried them with a towel. By this time the clerk returned with the socks. Placing a pair upon the boy’s feet, she purchased him a pair of shoes. She tied up the remaining pairs of socks and gave them to him.

She patted him on the head and said, “No doubt, my little fellow, you feel more comfortable now.”

As she turned to go, the astonished lad caught her by the hand, and looking up in her face, said, "Are you God’s wife?"

6. Knowing Our Business

Illustration

David E. Leininger

Fred Craddock tells the story from the early years of his ministry in Custer City, Oklahoma, a town of about 450 souls. There were four churches there, a Methodist church, a Baptist church, a Nazarene church, and a Christian church (where Fred served). Each had its share of the population on Wednesday night, Sunday morning, and Sunday evening. Each had a small collection of young people, and the attendance rose and fell according to the weather and whether it was time to harvest the wheat.

But the most consistent attendance in town was at the little café where all the pickup trucks were parked, and all the men were inside discussing the weather, and the cattle, and the wheat bugs, and the hail, and the wind, and is there going to be a crop. All their wives and sons and daughters were in one of those four churches. The churches had good attendance and poor attendance, but the café had consistently good attendance, better attendance than some of the churches. They were always there - not bad men, but good men, family men, hard-working men.

Fred says the patron saint of the group that met at the café was named Frank. Frank was seventy-seven when they first met. He was a good, strong man, a pioneer, a rancher and farmer, and a prospering cattle man too. He had been born in a sod house; he had his credentials, and all the men there at the café considered him their patron saint. "Ha! Old Frank will never go to church."

Fred says, "I met Frank on the street one time. He knew I was a preacher, but it has never been my custom to accost people in the name of Jesus, so I just was shaking hands and visiting with him, but he took the offensive. He said, "I work hard, I take care of my family and I mind my own business. Far as I'm concerned, everything else is fluff." You see what he told me? "Leave me alone, I'm not a prospect." I didn't bother Frank. That's why the entire church, and the whole town were surprised, and the men at the café church were absolutely bumfuzzled when old Frank, seventy-seven years old, presented himself before me one Sunday morning for baptism. I baptized Frank. Some of the talk in the community was, "Frank must be sick. Guess he's scared to meet his maker. They say he's got heart trouble. Going up there and being baptized, well, I never thought ol' Frank would do that, but I guess when you get scared..." All kinds of stories.

Dr. Craddock goes on: "We were talking the next day after his baptism, and I said, 'Uh, Frank, you remember that little saying you used to give me so much: "I work hard, I take care of my family, I mind my own business?"'

He said, "Yeah, I remember. I said that a lot."

I said, "You still say that?"

He said, "Yeah."

I said, "Then what's the difference?"

He said, "I didn't know then what my business was."

7. Absolute Devotion

Illustration

James Merritt

I was reading one time about Alexander the Great, who was carrying his triumphant military campaign into a certain city. It was a strongly fortified walled city. Alexander approached the city and demanded to see the king and set out his terms of surrender. The king laughed at him and said, "Why should I surrender to you? You can't do us any harm! We can endure any siege."

Alexander said to the king, "I want you to watch this." Nearby within sight of the city walls was a sheer cliff. He ordered his men to line up in single file and to March towards the cliff. The city's citizens watched with horrified fascination as one by one Alexander the Great's men marched over the edge of that cliff and plunged to their deaths. After several men had obeyed his orders, he commanded them to halt. He then called his troops back to his side and stood silently facing the city.

The effect on the citizens and the king was stunning. From spell bound silence they moved to absolute terror. They realized they had no walls thick enough and no defense strong enough to protect themselves against that kind of commitment and that kind of devotion. Spontaneously they rushed through the gates to surrender themselves to Alexander the great.

That is the kind of surrender and sacrifice that Jesus is asking for. One thing you have to say about these terrorists, they are willing to die for what they believe. The tragedy is that terrorists are more willing to pay a price and are more willing to die for a lie than Christians are to live for the truth.

8. Sometimes Love Does Not Count The Cost of Its Commitment

Illustration

William Gladstone, in announcing the death of Princess Alice to the House of Commons, told a touching story. The little daughter of the Princess was seriously ill with diphtheria. The doctors told the princess not to kiss her little daughter and endanger her life by breathing the child's breath. Once when the child was struggling to breathe, the mother, forgetting herself entirely, took the little one into her arms to keep her from choking to death. Rasping and struggling for her life, the child said, "Momma, kiss me!" Without thinking of herself the mother tenderly kissed her daughter. She got diphtheria and some days thereafter she died. Real love forgets self. Real love knows no danger. Real love doesn't count the cost. The Bible says, "Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it."

9. Crucified Followers

Illustration

D.D. Whedon

What the Lord here commands is, that each follower should take up, not his Savior's cross, but his own. The requirement is, that as Christ bore his own cross to his own crucifixion, so his followers should bear each his own cross to his own crucifixion. So the great crucified leader is followed by an endless train of crucified followers. They are crucified symbolically, in all their sufferings of mind or body, in behalf of Christ and of truth. Each follower who hath the spirit of his Master, is crucified in fact or in readiness of spirit. The Spirit of Christ is the spirit of martyrdom.

10. What about the Children?

Illustration

Scott Hoezee

Years ago a man named Millard Fuller was pretty near the apex of an American success story. He was a high-octane corporate executive working eight days a week and pulling down close to a million bucks a year. But then one day he heard God calling to him, telling him his life was overfull and his priorities out of whack. So in prayer with his wife one day, Fuller re-committed his life to Christ. He quit his job, moved to a more modest house, and wondered what to do next. What he ended up doing next was building affordable houses for low-income families who could purchase these homes interest-free. Today we are most of us well aware of the great good Habitat for Humanity has done.

A preacher once re-counted Fuller's story but was later approached by someone who asked, "How old were Fuller's children when he quit his job like that?" It took this preacher a minute to appreciate what lay behind this query: how dare Fuller uproot his kids and subject them to a less lavish lifestyle just so that he could serve God?! That is just the way lots of people think these days.

11. Would You Still Be His Disciple If You Lost Your All?

Illustration

Jerry Ruff

Jesus doesn't call us to be "convenient Christians", he calls us to be committed Christians who put Him first above everything else — even if that means dad, mom, siblings, kids, work, vacations, playtime, money, homes, friends. This is where the Living Bible translation fits in. Jesus is saying to us as His followers, "Sit down, count your blessings and then renounce them all for me." Would you still be His disciple if you lost your job? If you lost your savings? If you lost your health? If you lost your home? If you lost your wife and kids? Job said, "Though [God] slay me, yet will I trust Him." Horatio Spafford lost all his earthly possessions in the Great Chicago fire. A short time later his wife and children were sailing to England when the ship sank and his children were lost. Immediately he went to join his wife in England. As his ship got to the spot where his children drowned he wrote these words, "When peace like a river attendeth my way. When sorrows like sea billows roll — whatever my lot thou has taught me to say, ‘It is well, it is well with my soul.'"

It is this kind of Christianity Jesus is looking for ... not a convenience thing, not a faith that we turn on when we want to or when we need it! Jesus is not looking for followers. He is looking for disciples. He is looking for people who will count the cost of being His disciple who will then say, "Yes!"

12. Unexpected Cost

Illustration

Thomas C. Short

Pastor Thomas Short tells the following story: when I was in college I was one of several young men who decided to go to work on the railroad during summer vacation. At that time, there was very little automation on the railroad, and most of the work was done by manual labor. Many people warned us about the job. It was a hot job ... very, very hot. It was difficult. Everything out there was heavy. It was a dirty job, and to some extent, it was dangerous. But the pay was most attractive. None of us could make as much money doing anything else in the summer. So we went to work on the railroad, and only one of the five of us lasted past the first week. It was too tough and we were too weak. We thought we were ready for this tough job, but we were not. We had not accurately counted the cost.

13. Rebuilding a World View

Illustration

Wallace H. Kirby

In Lucien Price's The Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead, Whitehead tells how his personal and intellectual world came apart when the system of Newtonian physics proved inadequate to new research and experimentation. It was a time of great anguish and crisis for Whitehead. Anytime our world-view crumbles, it is a shattering experience. But we know that out of Whitehead's shambles came a new philosophic vision of the universe that has proved more satisfying and useful than the one that crumbled. Life's personal sufferings, hurts, defeats, and mistakes all have the possibility of being shaped into new perspectives and new visions. This is part of what the resurrection means.

14. Scattershot Christianity

Illustration

Wallace H. Kirby

There is a story about a mountaineer who was noted for his marksmanship. When asked about his prowess, he said that it was rather simple: "I just fire a round into a large tree and then draw a bulls-eye around it." Most of us want our discipleship to come so easily and so cheaply. We really don't appreciate it. Bonhoeffer tells us, "When Christ calls a man, he calls him to come and die." But Jesus is telling us that "the right stuff" can mean the sacrifice of everything for his sake.

15. Trusting in the Best of Things at the Worst of Times

Illustration

Wallace H. Kirby

The year 1653 was not a good time for religion in England. Destruction and apathy about the faith and the church were widespread. But Sir Robert Shirley saw beyond the evil and chaos - he founded a church. And on a plaque in that church is this tribute to Robert Shirley. It reads: "He stood for the best of things in the worst of times." Trusting in the resurrection can bring us to heroism large and small.

16. How Will the Church Be Lighted?

Illustration

James W. Moore

Several centuries ago in a mountain village in Europe, a wealthy nobleman wondered what legacy he should leave to his townspeople. He made a good decision. He decided to build them a church. No one was permitted to see the plans or the inside of the church until it was finished. At its grand opening, the people gathered and marveled at the beauty of the new church. Everything had been thought of and included. It was a masterpiece.

But then someone said, "Wait a minute! Where are the lamps? It is really quite dark in here. How will the church be lighted?" The nobleman pointed to some brackets in the walls, and then he gave each family a lamp, which they were to bring with them each time they came to worship.

"Each time you are here'" the nobleman said, "the place where you are seated will be lighted. Each time you are not here, that place will be dark. This is to remind you that whenever you fail to come to church, some part of God's house will be dark"

That's a poignant story, isn't it? And it makes a very significant point about the importance of our commitment and loyalty to the church. The poet Edward Everett Hale put it like this:

I am only one,
but still I am one.
I cannot do everything,
But still I can do something;
And because I cannot do everything
I will not refuse to do the something I can do.

What if every member of your church supported the church just as you do? What kind of church would you have? What if every single member served the church, attended the church, loved the church, shared the church, and gave to the church exactly as you do? What kind of church would you be?

17. The Challenge of Discipleship

Illustration

Mickey Anders

Churches sometimes go to great lengths to get people to come to their church. Not long ago on a church called the Positive Impact Christian Church offered a door prize of $1,000. All the local newspapers reported this unusual approach to evangelism. However, the preacher was deeply disappointed when only thirty people showed up when he was anticipating hundreds. After all, he thought, who could resist the appeal of a $1,000 door prize for a lucky worshiper.

Contrast that experience with a newspaper ad that appeared in London in the 1800's which said, "Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful." The ad was signed by Sir Ernest Shackleton, Antarctic explorer. Amazingly, the ad drew thousands of respondents, eager to sacrifice everything for the prospect of meaningful adventure.

Which approach do we take in the church today? Do we make discipleship easy or challenging? Well, our text today leaves no doubt about the method Jesus took. Instead of giving something away, he demanded that his followers give everything up.

18. What Does It Cost to Follow Jesus?

Illustration

Edward F. Markquart

We need to talk about evangelism and the Christian cultural push for larger growth and larger churches. It seems to me that we, the contemporary American church, are forever talking about the pleasures and benefits of belonging to a particular Christian congregation. We hear such phrases in our congregation as "We have a great schedule and you can even come for the "early bird special" when the church is open for business at the 7:30 AM worship. At the next service, we have a great church choir and the quality of music rivals the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. At the next worship service, we have a great contemporary worship service with a band that excels all others. We have a great senior's program with so many activities that a senior has an activity planned once or twice a week. We have a great youth program and your child will be influenced by Christian values and Christian friends." And so information about a congregation is presented in such a way as to persuade people to join our congregation. … All the while, no one seems to talk about the fine print as to what this will cost. No, I am not referring to offerings to pay the bills, but what it means to be a Christian, to be a follower of Jesus Christ - what's it going to COST to follow Jesus?

19. Working Hard

Illustration

Harold A. Bosley

David Livingston, one of the most virile Christian leaders of all time, had as his motto "Fear God, and work hard." He learned it in his austere home in Scotland and practiced it all his life. Livingston belongs to that select company of souls who not only know that not only good intentions are not enough but know also that their most strenuous efforts will not complete the really big jobs. Even so, they tackle them with all the energy they have and for all the days God gives them to live.

20. The Little Things

Illustration

Joseph Fort Newton

It is folly to think that because I am only one and can do very little, and that what I do counts for little, I need not do anything. As if a soldier should say that, since he is only one man, he might as well knock off and go to the movies. It would mean that the battle would be lost. All of us are ready to do some big spectacular thing to go into the spotlight. But it is the tireless doing of obscure, unknown things, the endless hidden fidelities and goodnesses, that really count. That things are as well with us as they are is due to quiet, anonymous loyalties.

21. The Final Stand

Illustration

Leonidas, King of Sparta, was preparing to make a stand with his Greek troops against the Persian army in 480 B.C. when a Persian envoy arrived. The man urged on Leonidas the futility of trying to resist the advance of the huge Persian army. "Our archers are so numerous," said the envoy, "that the flight of their arrows darkens the sun."

"So much the better," replied Leonidas, "for we shall fight them in the shade." Leonidas made his stand, and died with his 300 troops.

22. Breaking Away to Follow Christ

Illustration

David E. Leininger

Will Willimon, then, Dean of the Chapel down at Duke University, got a call from an upset parent, a VERY upset parent. "I hold you personally responsible for this," he said.

"Me?" Will asked.

The father was hot, upset because his graduate school bound daughter had just informed him that she was going to chuck it all ("throw it all away" was the way the father described it) and go do mission work with the Presbyterians in Haiti. "Isn't that absurd!" shouted the father. "A BS degree in mechanical engineering from Duke and she's going to dig ditches in Haiti."

"Well, I doubt that she's received much training in the Engineering Department here for that kind of work, but she's probably a fast learner and will probably get the hang of ditch-digging in a few months," Will said.

"Look," said the father, "this is no laughing matter. You are completely irresponsible to have encouraged her to do this. I hold you personally responsible," he said.

As the conversation went on, Dr. Willimon pointed out that the well-meaning but obviously unprepared parents were the ones who had started this ball rolling. THEY were the ones who had her baptized, read Bible stories to her, took her to Sunday School, let her go with the Presbyterian Youth Fellowship to ski in Vail. Will said, "You're the one who introduced her to Jesus, not me."

"But all we ever wanted her to be was a Presbyterian," said the father, meekly.

23. Missing the Obvious

Illustration

Brett Blair

Martin Marty, in "Context" (November 1997), spoke of a financial planner who observed after many years of advise giving "When clients talk to me about their estates, they usually say, 'If I die,' not 'when I die.' Even 80-year-olds use the conditional."

24. The Cost of Discipleship - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

The mark of a great leader is the demands he makes upon his followers. The Italian freedom fighter Garibaldi offered his men only hunger and death to free Italy. Winston Churchill told the English people that he had nothing to offer them but "blood, sweat, toil, and tears" in their fight against the enemies of England. Jesus demanded that his followers carry a cross. A sign of death.

Andrew died on a cross
Simon was crucified
Bartholomew was flayed alive
James (son of Zebedee) was beheaded
The other James (son of Alphaeus) was beaten to death
Thomas was run through with a lance
Matthias was stoned and then beheaded
Matthew was slain by the sword
Peter was crucified upside down
Thaddeus was shot to death with arrows
Philip was hanged

The demands that Jesus makes upon those who would follow him are extreme. Christianity is not a Sunday morning religion. It is a hungering after God to the point of death if need be. It shakes our foundations, topples our priorities, pits us against friend and family, and makes us strangers in this world. We sing, "What a Friend We Have in Jesus." But, we must come to see that on many occasions he is not our friend but our adversary.

One day, as Jesus was being followed by a large crowd, he turned on the them, sensing that the demands of discipleship were not getting through, he told two parables. In these parables we learn the three great requirements of Christianity. To follow Jesus:

1. We must establish our priorities.
2. We must count the cost.
3. We must pay the price.

25. The Word Hate

Illustration

Brett Blair

"If anyone comes after me and does not hate... "Hate" is not primarily a feeling word in the Aramaic language, the language Jesus spoke. It is primarily a priority word. It means to abandon, to leave aside, to reject, or to love less than the other (comparative). A good example is that Jacob was loved and Esau was rejected, or "hated." Another good example is the story of Jacob: "and he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren" (Gen 29:31). Jacob's desire for Rachel rather than Leah is the point.

So in this case Jesus is probably expressing the need for kingdom commitment to abandon all other allegiances. Jesus is not suggesting feelings of hatred toward people who we would otherwise love and care about. The opposite is actually being stressed here. The disciples separating themselves for mission in the kingdom underscores their devotion to Jesus because they have left the ones they loved.

26. Are You Available?

Illustration

King Duncan

Writer Frederick Buechner tells about his wife's greatgrandfather, a man named George Shinn. Shinn was a pastor back in 1880. He was summoned one midnight to the bedside of an old woman who lived by herself. She had little money and few friends, and she was dying. She told Shinn that she wanted another woman to come stay with her for such time as she might have left, so Shinn and the old woman's doctor struck out in the darkness to try to dig one up for her. It sounds like a parable the way it is told. They knocked at doors and threw pebbles at second story windows. One woman said she couldn't come because she had children. Another said she simply wouldn't know what to do, what to be, in a crisis like that. Another was suspicious of two men prowling around at that hour of night and wouldn't even talk to them. But finally, as the memoir of Dr. Shinn puts it in the prose of another age, "They rapped at the humble door of an Irish woman, the mother of a brood of children. She put her head out of the window. "Who's there?' she said. "And what can you want at this time of night?" They tell her the situation, her warm, Irish heart cannot resist. "Will you come?" "Sure and I'll come, and I'll do the best I can." And she did come," the account ends. "She did the best she could."

This woman was willing. She was available. Is there a warmer word in our language? Available. It means, I'm here when you call. I'm ready, willing, able.

Great crowds were following Jesus. He turned around and said to them: "Anyone who wants to be my follower must love me far more than he does his own father, mother, wife, children, brothers, or sisters yes, more than his own life otherwise he cannot be my disciple."

Jesus was asking, "Are you available?"

27. Making Sacrifices

Illustration

King Duncan

Chiune Sugihara was born on a day of new beginnings January 1, 1900. As a boy, he cherished the dream of becoming the Japanese ambassador to Russia. By the 1930s, he was the ambassador to Lithuania, just a step away from Russia.

One morning, a huge throng of people gathered outside his home. They were Jews who had made their way across treacherous terrain from Poland, desperately seeking his help. They wanted Japanese visas, which would enable them to flee Eastern Europe and the Gestapo.

Three times Sugihara wired Tokyo for permission to provide the visas; three times he was rejected. He had to choose between the fulfillment of his dream as an ambassador and people's lives. He chose the latter. He dared to disobey orders. For twenty-eight days he wrote visas by hand, barely sleeping or eating. Recalled to Berlin, he was still writing visas and shoving them through the train windows into the hands of the refugees who ran alongside. Ultimately he saved six thousand lives.

Sugihara was not only a courageous Japanese; he was also a committed Christian. He spent his remaining days in Japan, humbly selling light bulbs. When his story was finally told, his son was asked, "How did your father feel about his choice?" The young man replied, "My father's life was fulfilled. When God needed him to do the right thing, he was available to do it."

28. Sacrifice for Discipleship

Illustration

King Duncan

Millions of Christians have been inspired by the life and death of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor and theologian who was killed during World War II.

Bonhoeffer was as outspoken concerning the sins of Adolf Hitler as John the Baptist was about the sins of Herod. Friends in the United States and England, knowing the probable consequences of opposing Hitler, arranged for Bonhoeffer to leave Germany. After a few months, however, Bonhoeffer knew he must return to his homeland. There he preached ever more strongly against what was happening to his people. Needless to say, he aroused great opposition. Soon he was forced to go underground. Later he was imprisoned. There he was executed.

Out of his struggles he wrote a monumental work, The Cost of Discipleship. It stands as an eternal judgment of those who want Christ but do not want to bear a cross. John the Baptist understood the cost of discipleship. He knew what it was to sacrifice everything in answer to God's call.

29. Never Underestimate the Power of a Cold Cup of Water - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Now I would like to stop the world for just one minute and ask you to think back. Think back with me to the first century. Think about those 50 years after Jesus' death and what it must been like for Jesus' disciples. Before the last one died their efforts had brought 500,000 men, women, and children into the ranks of the church. But what they had to suffer in order to accomplish this task is seldom discussed. We like the outcome of their discipleship but we don't want to hear the cost of discipleship. So for the record here is the cost: History tells us...

John died of extreme old age exiled to the island of Patmos.
Judas Iscariot, after betraying his Lord, hanged himself.
Peter was crucified; head downward, during the persecution of Nero.
Andrew died on a cross at Patrae, a Grecian Colony.
James, the younger, son of Alphaeus, was thrown from a pinnacle of the Temple, and then beaten to death with a club.
Bartholomew was flayed alive in Albanapolis, Armenia.
James, the elder son of Zebedee, was beheaded at Jerusalem.
Thomas, the doubter, was run through the body with a lance at Coromandel, in the East Indies.
Philip was hanged against a pillar at Heropolis.
Thaddeus was shot to death with arrows.
Simon died on a cross in Persia (what we now call Iran.)
Matthew was first stoned and then beheaded.

What sacrifices! And I ask you why? Why did they choose to die this way? Why desert your father and mother, your wife and child, and your home? Why put up with the constant humiliation, and hunger, and persecution, and defeat town after town after town?

I'll tell you why, because, in the words of Apostle Paul, they were held captive by the words and teachings of Jesus Christ. It is Paul's way of saying they were slaves to Christ.

It is quite likely we shall never be tested to the extent that the disciples were but there are some ways to gauge our commitment. Let's look at a couple this morning...

1. Sacrifice is a sign of mature commitment.
2. Hospitality is a sign of discipleship.
3. A cup of water is a sign that Christ is welcome.

30. Why Must We Carry a Cross? - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Can people change instantly at salvation? Some traditions call it repentance and renewal. Some call it Sanctification of the believer. Whatever you call it most traditions expect some quick fix to sin. According to this belief, when someone gives his or her life to Christ, there is an immediate, substantive, in-depth, miraculous change in habits, attitudes, and character. We go to church as if we are going to the grocery store: Powdered Christians. Just add water and disciples are born not made.

Unfortunately, there is no such powder and disciples of Jesus Christ are not instantly born. They are slowly raised through many trials, suffering, and temptations. A study has found that only 11 percent of churchgoing teenagers have a well-developed faith, rising to only 32 percent for churchgoing adults. Why? Because true life change only begins at salvation, takes more than just time, is about training, trying, suffering, and even dying (adapted from James Emery White, Rethinking the Church, Baker, 1997, p. 55-57).

Peter took Jesus aside and rebuked him. Why? Peter believes the kingdom of God can be obtained instantly by force. Peter has a worldly view of the Kingdom and Jesus is speaking about a heavenly kingdom. For a moment I would like you to listen to this story with new ears and see Jesus through the eyes of Peter and the rest of the disciples. Get rid of all your notions about who Jesus is. Take away from your mind Jesus as the Son of God. Strip from your memory that he died on the Cross and that he did that for your sins. Forget that Jesus ever said love your enemies or love your neighbor.

Now I want you to think of Jesus only as a military leader like Norman Swartscoff. Imagine that your country has been invaded and is being ruled by godless men. Sense, now, that the tension is mounting and you about to go into battle. That you are about to conduct a coup d'etat. That you and this band of ruffians are going to attempt to overthrow this government by a sudden violent strike. That the odds are stacked against you but you have a very strong belief that God is on your side despite the overwhelming odds.

Now you are thinking like Peter. Jesus comes before his disciples and lays out his military strategy. Look at verse 31. Jesus says, "We are going to march into Jerusalem and your General will suffer many things. We are not going to get any help from our Jewish brothers the Elders. Even the Chief Priest and the Saducees will not join us. Our government the Sanhedrin is corrupt and can be of no help to us. We are going it alone and I will die in this battle.

On this day Jesus spoke plainly to his disciples about the events soon to transpire and even though it was plain language it was not plain enough. Peter was not able to shake his understanding of Jesus as his General so he pulls Jesus aside and rebukes him. He says, "Sir, this is not a very good military strategy. You are not going to die, don't say that. It's not good for morale. We are going to be there with you and we will fight to the end and we will throw these godless Romans out of Israel, you will ascend to the throne in place of Herod, and we will be at your right and left hand as the new leaders of Palestine.

It is fascinating to note that just before Jesus rebukes Peter he turns and looks at his disciples. It is as if Jesus is putting two and two together and realizes the disciples have put Peter up to this. It is a perilous moment in the life of Christ. He must dispel this error from their minds and teach them the meaning of his mission. So, he rejects Peter outright calling him a tool of Satan and says, you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.

Jesus is up against a formidable foe. And in the end this foe may posses more power then he. But the foe is not Peter and it's not the Sanhedrin or Pontius Pilate, or Rome. This formidable foe is not even Satan himself. The powerful enemy of Jesus is our quest for positions of rank and status.

To address the confusion Jesus pulls his disciples together and brings them before a crowd. And in front of the crowd he corrects the disciples aspirations for privilege, rank, and power and he gives them this simple little directive: You must take up your cross and follow me. This morning I would like to ask the question "Why must we carry a cross?" and give three reasons we must do so. We must carry a cross to remind us that…

We are not the center of the Universe.
There are others who suffer and we must fight for justice in the lives of others.
We are responsible in part for the cross that Jesus carried.

31. Death in Jesus Christ

Illustration

J. Dudley Weaver

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lost his life for the sake of the Gospel, literally, wrote: "When Christ calls a (person), he bids him come and die. It may be a death like that of the first disciples who had to leave home and work to follow him, or it may be a death like (Martin) Luther's who had to leave the monastery and go out into the world, but it is the same death every time - death in Jesus Christ, the death of the old (person) at his call... Only the person who is dead to his own will can follow Christ." (from The Cost of Discipleship).

The cross, Bonhoeffer, tells us, stands not as "the terrible end to an other-wise god-fearing and happy life, but it meets us at the beginning of our communion with Christ." Thus our life with Christ begins and ends. That's pretty radical stuff, but Christianity is pretty radical stuff, counter-cultural even.

32. The Disciples' Culture Shock

Illustration

Father George Griener

In the summer of 1971 I had gone to Munich to study German. It was my first time in "the Fatherland," and I suppose I had half expected to find blond, blue-eyed kids yodeling on street corners, or adults heading to work in Lederhosen humming Beethoven's 9th. Instead, blaring from every Italian Pizza Parlor, every Turkish shish kabob stall or ubiquitous McDonald's was the 1971 Lynn Anderson hit song, "I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden."

Some of you may even remember the words: it was a rather banal ditty, uttering the commonplace wisdom that sunshine and rain are part of every life. But hearing this American hit song in Munich played havoc with my expectations. In fact, it was such a culture shock that the memory remains vivid even today, three decades later.

Two millennia later Mark's Gospel continues to recall the culture shock the apostles had when the cost of discipleship finally dawned on them; when their expectations of the reign of God came face-to-face with hard-nosed reality; when fascination and enthusiasm with this Jesus began to be transformed into self-sacrificing commitment.

33. True Disciples

Illustration

Edward F. Markquart

I have a favorite quotation which is above my desk in my study. The years have passed, and the paper on which this quotation was written has become old, brown and brittle. I borrowed this quotation from Dietrich Bonhoeffer years ago. Bonhoeffer says in his book, The Cost of Discipleship, "True disciples are always few in number. Do not put your hopes in large numbers for true disciples will always be few." Every once in a while as a pastor, when I get caught up by sin and want to see large crowds on Sunday morning which imply (to the eyes of the world and worldly church) that I am a "successful pastor," I remember that Jesus ultimately found power in a small number of transformed lives rather than in the fickle crowds.

34. Cheap Grace

Illustration

Joel Leyrer

Let me give you a modern day illustration of a man whom I believe both understood and exemplified Jesus' words on self-denial, cross-bearing and following Him. Some of you may be familiar with the name Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was a Lutheran pastor who lived in Germany during the Second World War. Convinced that it was his Christian duty to work within his own country for the defeat of Adolf Hitler, Bonhoeffer became a part of an underground resistance movement. Unfortunately, his involvement was discovered and he was sent to a prison camp. He never returned. In 1945, at the age of 39, he was executed by hanging, just as War II was ending. We may not share in all of his views, but by any and all definitions he is a 20th century Christian martyr.

By the time of his death he had already done quite a bit of writing. Perhaps his best-known work (still available and popular today) is entitled, "The Cost of Discipleship." In it he offers many thought provoking statements on the Christian life. One of the phrases he uses over and over again (and something he accuses many modern Christians of buying into) is the concept of "cheap grace."

Listen to how he defines it: "Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our church. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ."

35. Must Suffer and Be Rejected

Illustration

Brett Blair

Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Cost of Discipleship dissects the phrase: Jesus must suffer and be rejected. He pulls out three significant teachings:

What is about to happen must happen.
What is about to happen is - Jesus will suffer
What is about to happen is - Jesus will be rejected

Bonhoeffer continues: This "must" is inherent in the promise of God - the Scriptures must be fulfilled. Next, there is a distinction here between suffering and rejection. Had he only suffered, Jesus might still have been applauded as the Messiah. All the sympathy and admiration of the world might have been focused on his passion. It could have been viewed as a tragedy with its own intrinsic value, dignity and honor. But in the passion, Jesus is a rejected Messiah. His rejection robs the passion of its halo of glory. It must be a passion without honor.

36. Accepting a Human Messiah

Illustration

Brian Stoffregen

In contrast to the theology of the cross and our suffering/dying king. Robert Capon in Hunting the Divine Fox presents a wonderful picture of our typical American Messiah and it doesn't look much like Jesus on the cross.

Almost nobody resists the temptation to jazz up the humanity of Christ. The true paradigm of the ordinary American view of Jesus is Superman: "Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. It's Superman! Strange visitor from another planet, who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American Way." If that isn't popular christology, I'll eat my hat. Jesus gentle, meek and mild, but with secret, souped-up, more-than-human insides bumbles around for thirty-three years, nearly gets himself done in for good by the Kryptonite Kross, but at the last minute, struggles into the phone booth of the Empty Tomb, changes into his Easter suit and, with a single bound, leaps back up to the planet Heaven.

You think that's funny? Don't laugh. The human race is, was and probably always will be deeply unwilling to accept a human messiah. We don't want to be saved in our humanity; we want to be fished out of it. We crucified Jesus, not because he was God, but because he blasphemed: He claimed to be God and then failed to come up to our standards for assessing the claim. It's not that we weren't looking for the Messiah; it's just that he wasn't what we were looking for. Our kind of Messiah would come down from a cross. He would carry a folding phone booth in his back pocket. He wouldn't do a stupid thing like rising from the dead. He would do a smart thing like never dying." [pp. 90-91; this book has been reprinted, along with two others under the title The Romance of the Word: One Man's Love Affair with Theology]

37. Forgiveness

Illustration

Kendall K. McCabe

Forgiveness is part of the action of the Holy Spirit in our lives. More accurately, it is the action of Christ through the Holy Spirit in our midst. By the power of the Spirit, Christ is present both forgiving us and forgiving through us. The Spirit is given to us by Christ himself. He breathed upon the disciples and they received the Holy Spirit.

In one of her books, Corrie Ten Boom tells of meeting the guard from the concentration camp where she and her family had been held by the Nazis. She had been speaking at a large church meeting, and after the meeting he had come forward. He put out his hand to her, and she instinctively pulled back, remembering the horrors to which that hand had been put or in which it had cooperated, but then, she testified, something came over her, she knew not what, and she reached out and grasped his hand and extended her forgiveness as the tears rolled down his cheeks.

There will be those who say this is merely sentimental and who grit their teeth, as they demand more obvious vengeance; I cannot judge them. I only know that to forgive in such a manner is beyond human comprehension; it is the work of God and can only be done by us through the grace of God at work in us. Nor, is it an attitude we Christians carry around with us all the time, like little Mary Sunshines. Corrie Ten Boom received the grace to forgive in the moment the grace was needed, and not before. Our Lord, upon the cross, forgave his executioners while he was being nailed to it; there was no plenary absolution in advance. Forgiveness, like the resurrection, breaks in upon us through shut doors.

We are called and sent to participate in Christ's message of forgiveness because we have been forgiven. "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." Christ was sent to be the agent of reconciliation, and we are to be such agents in the world. It seems to me a sad fact that forgiveness has been for sale in the church during so much of its history, when it should have been given away.

38. The Great Blondin

Illustration

Michael P. Green

It was a bright, clear morning. A large crowd had gathered at Niagara Falls to see the famous Charles Blondin walk over it on a tightrope. The sun glistened on the cascading torrent as it rushed over the precipice. From below came the ceaseless thunder of the plunging cataract.

The world’s greatest tightrope walker briefly tested the taut strand that reached across to the opposite bank. Then he took his long pole and, balancing himself expertly, started across. The crowd followed every movement tensely. Step by step he moved forward. The people on the shore reacted nervously to every sharp motion of the balancing pole. But their fears and forebodings were unnecessary. The great Blondin not only went across safely, but returned as well—to the great relief and admiration of the spectators.

Turning to the audience, he then made a sensational offer. He would cross the falls again, this time with someone on his back. Who was willing to go? No one rushed forward to accept the offer. Picking out a man at random, Blondin asked, “Do you believe that I am able to carry you across?”

“Yes, sir,” came the unhesitating reply.

“Well, then, let’s go,” Blondin urged.

“Not on your life!”—and the man withdrew into the crowd.

And so it went. One after another expressed great confidence in the tightrope walker, but no one would agree to let Blondin take him across. Finally, a young fellow moved toward the front of the crowd. Blondin repeated his question: “Do you believe I can carry you across safely?”

“Yes, I do”

“Are you willing to let me?”

“As a matter of fact, I am.” The young man climbed onto the expert’s back. Blondin stepped onto the rope, paused momentarily, then moved across the falls without difficulty.

There were many in that crowd who believed that Blondin could do it. But there was only one who was willing to trust him to do it.

39. Birds Sing after a Storm

Illustration

Edward Inabinet

At age ninety-three, Rose Kennedy was being interviewed by a magazine reporter. By this time, four of her nine children had died violently. Another daughter, Rosemary, was mentally disabled all her life and would soon be gone.

Mrs. Kennedy had outlived her husband long enough to have seen his rather profligate and unscrupulous life told and retold in the press. She is an old lady, hit by tragedies again and again. The reporter asked about all this and Rose Kennedy answered, slowly: "I have always believed that God never gives a cross to bear larger than we can carry. And I have always believed that, no matter what, God wants us to be happy. He doesn't want us to be sad.

"Birds sing after a storm," she said, "Why shouldn't we?"

In the presence of death, it is not easy to express joy at least not for the world to see. But those in Christ have an inward joy just the same.

40. Cost-free Discipleship Produces Wimps

Illustration

Brennan Manning

Brennan Manning in his book, The Signature of Jesus, writes, "We have made it too easy to be a Christian. The sole requirements are the recitation of a creed and attendance at a local church where there is no community and little fellowship. Christianity used to be risky business; it is no longer. Cost-free discipleship produces wimps."

41. Carry Someone with You

Illustration

King Duncan

There was a tribe of Indians who lived a long time ago in the state of Mississippi. They lived next to a very swift and dangerous river. The current was so strong that if somebody happened to fall in or stumbled into it they could be swept away downstream.

One day the tribe was attacked by a hostile group of settlers. They found themselves with their backs against the river. They were greatly outnumbered and their only chance for escape was to cross the rushing river. They huddled together and those who were strong picked up the weak and put them on their shoulders; the little children, the sick, the old and the infirm, those who were ill or wounded were carried on the backs of those who were strongest. They waded out into the river, and to their surprise they discovered that the weight on their shoulders carrying the least and the lowest helped them to keep their footing and to make it safely across the river.

Jesus is trying to teach the disciples an object lesson about greatness, about servanthood, about leadership. He is saying to them and to us, "Have you lost the childlike joy and love and faith that once were yours?" He is also saying to them and to us, "If you want to walk on secure ground in this world it helps to carry someone with you."

42. Uses and Misuses

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

The great baseball catcher Yogi Berra was involved in a ball game in which the score was tied, with two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning. The batter from the opposing team stepped up to the batting box and made the sign of the cross on home plate with his bat. Berra was a Catholic, too, but he wiped off the plate with his glove and said to the pious batter, "Why don't we let God just watch this game?" That is good theology when applied to the outcome of a baseball game. It's terrible when applied to the way we live our lives and carry out the work of God. Worse than that, it is fatal. God is merely in attendance at the game, our prayers are merely ceremonial functions: tips of the hats, verbal recognition over the loudspeaker between innings, or requests to throw out the game ball. Prayer is always getting nudged aside, neglected or perfunctorily performed. Many of us feel we just have too much to do to have time to pray.

43. I Looked in Your Eyes

Illustration

Keith Wagner

There is a legend that says many years ago an old man stood on a Virginia riverbank. He was waiting to cross the river and, since it was bitterly cold and there were no bridges, he would have to catch a ride to the other side. After a lengthy wait he spotted a group of horsemen approaching. He let the first one pass, then the second, third, fourth and fifth. One rider remained. As he drew abreast, the old man looked him in the eye and said, "Sir, would you give me a ride across the river?"

The rider immediately replied, "Certainly." Once across the river, the old man slid to the ground. "Sir," the rider said before leaving. "I could not help but notice that you permitted all the other men to pass without asking for a ride. Then, when I drew abreast, you immediately asked me to carry you across. I am curious as to why you didn't ask them and you did ask me." The old man responded, "I looked into their eyes and could see no love and knew in my own heart it would be useless to ask for a ride. But when I looked into your eyes, I saw compassion, love and the willingness to help. I knew you would be glad to give me a ride across the river."

The rider was touched. "I'm grateful for what you are saying," he said. "I appreciate it very much." With that, Thomas Jefferson turned and rode off to the White House.

44. The Weight of the Cross

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

An American businessman traveled to Europe to see the famous Oberammergau Passion Play? Following the performance the businessman had the opportunity to meet and talk with Anton Lang who portrayed Christ in the play. Seeing the cross that was used in the play, the businessman wanted his wife to take his picture holding it. He attempted to lift the cross to his shoulder. To his surprise he could hardly budge it from the floor.

He said to Mr. Lang, "I don't understand. I figured the cross would be hollow. Why do you carry such a heavy cross?" Mr. Lang's reply explains why this play draws people from allover the world to that little Bavarian village. He said, "If I did not feel the weight of His cross, I could not play the part."

And neither can we.

45. Lent: Giving Up

Illustration

Billy D. Strayhorn

Self Denial is about making a sacrifice that makes a difference, focusing on the Cross and reminding ourselves what Christ gave up for us. Rev. Craig Gates of Jackson Mississippi has a great list of suggestions. He says we should:

GIVE UP grumbling! Instead, "In everything give thanks." Constructive criticism is OK, but "moaning, groaning, and complaining" are not Christian disciplines.

GIVE UP 10 to 15 minutes in bed! Instead, use that time in prayer, Bible study and personal devotion. A few minutes in prayer WILL keep you focused.

GIVE UP looking at other people's worst attributes. Instead concentrate on their best points. We all have faults. It is a lot easier to have people overlook our shortcomings when we overlook theirs first.

GIVE UP speaking unkindly. Instead, let your speech be generous and understanding. It costs so little to say something kind and uplifting or to offer a smile. Why not check that sharp tongue at the door?

GIVE UP your hatred of anyone or anything! Instead, learn the discipline of love. "Love covers a multitude of sins."

GIVE UP your worries and anxieties! They're too heavy for you to carry anyway. Instead, trust God with them. Anxiety is spending emotional energy on something we can do nothing about: like tomorrow! Live today and let God's grace be sufficient.

GIVE UP TV one evening a week! Instead, visit someone who's lonely or sick. There are those who are isolated by illness or age. Why isolate yourself in front of the "tube?" Give someone a precious gift: your time!

GIVE UP buying anything but essentials for yourself! Instead, give the money to God. The money you would spend on the luxuries could help someone meet basic needs. We're called to be stewards of God's riches, not consumers.

GIVE UP judging others by appearances and by the standard of the world! Instead, learn to give up yourself to God. There is only one who has the right to judge, Jesus Christ.

46. Obsolete Silly Laws

Illustration

Staff

Silly old laws exist on the books of towns all over the United States. Here are some of the silliest.

In Lexington, Ky., there is an ordinance forbidding anyone to carry an ice-cream cone in his pocket.
In Waterloo, Nebr., barbers are forbidden to eat onions between seven a.m. and seven p.m.
In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts it is against the law to eat peanuts in church or to use tomatoes in making clam chowder.
In Kansas an old law states that you cannot eat snakes on Sunday or rattlesnake meat in public.
In Los Angeles you cannot bathe two babies in the same tub at the same time.
In Zion, Ill., it is illegal for anyone to give lighted cigars to dogs, cats and other domesticated animals kept as pets.
In Carmel, N.Y., a man can't go outside while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match.
In Gary, Ind., persons are prohibited from attending a movie house or other theater and from riding a public streetcar within four hours of eating garlic.
In Hartford, Conn., you aren't allowed to cross a street while walking on your hands.
In Baltimore, it's illegal to take a lion to the movies.
In Nicholas County, W. Va., no member of the clergy is allowed to tell jokes or humorous stories from the pulpit during a church service.
In Carrizozo, N.M., it's forbidden for a female to appear unshaven in public (includes legs and face).
In New Jersey a person can be arrested for slurping soup in a public restaurant.
A citizen may not carry a lunch pail on the public streets in Riverside, Calif.
In Oklahoma you cannot take a bite of another person's hamburger.
In Green, N.Y., you cannot eat peanuts and walk backwards on the sidewalks while a concert is on.
In Houston, Tex., the law stipulates that you cannot buy rye bread, goose liver or Limburger cheese on Sunday, and if you do, you can not take it out.
A Lynn, Mass., ordinance states babies may not be given coffee to drink.
In Winona Lake, Ind., it is illegal to eat ice cream at a counter on Sunday.
It is against the law for Nebraska tavern owners to sell beer unless they have a kettle of soup brewing.
According to an old Detroit law, banana peels are not to be thrown in the streets for fear of injury to horses.
In Connecticut pickles which, when dropped 12 inches, collapse in their own juice are illegal. They must remain whole and even bounce.
In Corvallis, Oreg., young ladies are not allowed to drink coffee after six o'clock in the evening.
In Lehigh Nebr. it is against the law to sell doughnut holes.
In Richmond, Va., it is illegal to match coins in public restaurants to see who pays for the coffee.
In Baltimore, Md., "Only pure unadulterated, unsophisticated and wholesome milk" may be sold.

47. Regardless of the Cost?

Illustration

Bryn MacPhail

There's a vast difference between intellectual faith and genuine faith. In the late 1890's, a famous tightrope walker strung a wire across Niagara Falls. As 10,000 people watched, he inched his way along the wire from one side of the falls to the other.

When he got to the other side, the crowd cheered wildly. Finally, the tightrope walker was able to quiet the crowd and shouted to them, 'Do you believe in me?'. The crowd shouted back, 'We believe! We believe!'.

Again he quieted the crowd and shouted to them, 'I'm going back across the tightrope but this time I'm going to carry someone on my back. Do you believe I can do that?'. The crowd yelled back, 'We believe! We believe!'. He quieted the crowd one more time and then asked them, 'Who will be that person?'.

The crowd suddenly became silent. Not a single person was willing to apply the very truth that they professed to believe in that the tightrope walker could cross the falls with a person on his back.

We may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but does our faith surpass the faith of demons? Are we willing trust our lives with Jesus? Are we willing to follow Him regardless of the cost?

48. The Cross Has Always Caused Problems

Illustration

Richard J. Fairchild

A Pastor on Northern Vancouver Island wrote to online study group this message: "I'm having difficulty with the Gospel this week; what is this cross that I am to take up, and what am I to deny in following Jesus?" Another Pastor, a student minister in the United States wrote: “I find this a hard gospel text because it talks about suffering rather than joy.”

The cross has always caused problems to people. Brutal and barbaric - the cross was a tool of political power for the Romans. They maintained their power because of the fear of death on the cross. When one was condemned by the state, the condemned literally had to "take up his cross" and carry it to the public place where he was to be crucified. It was part of the humiliation process, the mechanism of social control for which crucifixion was invented.

The cross was an instrument of suffering and shame - and no more so than among the Children of Israel - where the scriptures themselves declare: "cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree". To die on a cross was a sign that one died cut off from God, and cut off from the people of God - a sign that the person was rejected. And of course in the case of Jesus this was very true.

49. TASKMASTER

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Exodus 1:11 - "Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens; and they built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses."

Just as today we have foremen who assign jobs and see that their instructions are carried out, the ancient rulers also had such foremen, and they were called taskmasters. However, whereas today we hardly expect the plant foreman to be a cruel person, whose job is in enforcing his orders by physical means, this is exactly what the ancient taskmaster embodied. In fact, the Egyptian taskmasters were equipped with rods for disciplinary purposes, and their cruelty is legendary. To carry out the idea even further - the Hebrew root of the word means "to oppress." So you can see that they were hard men to deal with, indeed, and hardly wise to cross.

Pharaoh had appointed these taskmasters over the Hebrews to make their work hard and wearisome; he hoped by such oppression to break down their physical strength, and thereby to reduce their numerical growth, and also to crush their hopes of ever regaining their liberty.

With such men in their ancestral background, we can understand why the fact that David and Solomon had such men in their administrations was disruptive. This was one of the complaints made to Rehoboam - his father Solomon’s forced-labor system was bitterly resented.

In the writings of the prophets, any foreign ruler or oppressor may be given this title, as is also the driver of an animal. The simile is apt - as the driver forces his beast to go the way he wishes by the use of the whip, so also the taskmaster forces the people under him to do what he wishes by the use of force.

50. Scientific Materialism

Illustration

Charles Lindbergh

I “grew up as a disciple of science. I know its fascination. I have felt the godlike power man derives from his machines... [but I have] seen the science I worshiped, and the aircraft I loved, destroying the civilization I expected them to serve . . . We are in the grip of a scientific materialism, caught in a vicious cycle where our security today seems to depend on regimentation and weapons which will ruin us tomorrow . . . Unless science is controlled by a greater moral force, it will become the Antichrist prophesied by the early Christians."

Note: From Lindbergh's book written in the wake of the atomic bomb and World War II, Of Flight and Life. It is Lindbergh’s impassioned warning against the dangers of scientific materialism and the powers of technology.

Showing 1 to 50 of 74 results