Sermon and Worship Resources

John 10:1-21 · The Shepherd and His Flock

1 "I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a strangers voice." 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

7 Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

19 At these words the Jews were again divided. 20 Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"

21 But others said, "These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"

How to Live a Sizzle-When-It-Drizzles Life

John 10:1-21

Sermon
by Leonard Sweet

When the sun went down, life slowed down. That’s how it used to be.

When illumination after dark meant a smoky oil lamp or a dangerously dripping tallow candle, there were limitations on activities. Forget all those Hollywood movies. The rich might have had enough candle-power (and servants) to light up a ball room or a banquet hall. But for common, everyday people, the light of one or two lamps and the glow from a small cooking fire was all that brightened the night. Even the faintest light was far more welcoming than being outside in the darkness.

Last week a self-proclaimed, self-deluded “eco-activist” decided to cut the power lines in our island community as a form of social protest. At 10 p.m. on Saturday night, just as the wind whipped up and the water rained down, the lights went out. All of them, all at once.

Everyone on two islands were totally in the dark. Even though we had flashlights and candles and kerosene lamps, the darkness transformed “home” into something strange and menacing. It is not a time to be alone. In fact, the lights went out just as we were concluding our “Spring Advance” with Reggie McNeal (author of The Present Future, Practicing Greatness, Get a Life!). It was as if someone had flipped a switch and everyone scattered, wanting to get home and nuzzle like puppies, sharing body heat and bravado, hoping for a quick end to the darkness.

Maybe it was the approaching nightfall, and that urge to band and bond when shadows creep longer, that prompted the two forlorn disciples that we met last week on the Emmaus road to coax their walking companion to join them: “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over” (v.29).

One simple invitation opened the doors for the first generation of Jesus’ disciples.

That simple spontaneous invitation would be repeated nightly, a thousand years later and for a thousand years, by monks offering their end-of-the-day prayers: “Mane nobiscum Domine, quoniam advesperascit” or “Stay with us Lord, for the evening falls.”

Another thousand years later Henry Lyte opened his greatest hymn with the same sentiment, “Abide with me, fast falls the eventide.” English essayist Ronald Blythe memorably calls these “The first words of the post-Resurrection world beseeching Christ to enter it as guest.” (Ronald Blythe , The Circling Year [Norwich: The Canterbury Press, 2001], 76.)

As the danger that slips in under cover of darkness approaches, the most vulnerable must be gathered and guarded. No one knew this better than the Palestinian shepherds of the first century. Their flocks were vulnerable to the predations of four-legged hunters and two-legged poachers. Under cover of darkness any stray sheep was a potential “meals-on-wheels” for all sorts of hungry hunters. Communal sheepfolds, small walled enclosures, were often shared by several different flocks and their shepherds. Coming together for safety during the night was essential for survival.

Jesus’ parable describes that kind of coming together. But Jesus offers something more than just a way to “make it through the night.” As Jesus revealed that he was both shepherd and gateway he enabled his listeners to gain a glimpse of the transformed way of living he would make possible.

It was not a “hunker down against the darkness” existence.

It was not a “band together out of fear” existence.

It was not a “better build a ‘panic room’” existence.

In fact, Jesus did not offer an “existence” of any kind. Jesus offered “life,” and not just “life” but “abundant life” or “whole life” or “maximum life” or what we are calling a “sizzle-while-it-drizzles” life.

Whole life, abundant life, sizzle-while-it-drizzles life is post-resurrection life. It is a life made possible because of Christ’s triumph over death and sin. Jesus invites us all to enter that post-resurrection reality. He is the gate, the entryway into a redeemed life, a reborn life, a reclaimed life, a sizzle-while-it-drizzles life. This kind of whole life is ours once we go through that gate, once we cross the threshold from despair to forgiveness, from brokenness to wholeness, from disillusionment to discipleship.

The whole life Jesus offers is a life lived out in this world—-a world of tears and tears, a world where the fabric of our lives is ripped to shreds and in need of repair. Jesus didn’t say that the “thief” who comes “only to steal and kill and destroy” would magically disappear. But for those who experience John 10:10 life--whole life, abundant life, sizzle-while-it-drizzles life--they have something the “thief” can never touch.

Let’s be as upfront and down-to-earth as we can be this morning: A John 10:10 life is not a perfect life. An abundant life is not a pain-free life. An abundant life is not a “charmed” life.

In fact, I will guarantee you this: even though you are a disciple of Jesus, even though you have experienced God’s amazing grace, there will be periods when every day of your life is the same . . . the worst day of your life. Did you get it? For every one of us, there will be times when every day of our life is the same ...the worst day of our life.

Sometimes life becomes a sinkhole. Sometimes life swallows us up as quickly as it did that 32-year-old California man (Jason Chellew) who was relaxing in the living room of his Alta, California home (March 2006) when the earth under him opened, and the floor was no more. (They found him buried under 8 feet of dirt and debris).

Washington State is called the “evergreen” state. But all that green comes with a lot of grey. The price of green is grey. Much of the Pacific Northwest is technically a “temperate” (not tropical) rain forest for a reason — it rains a LOT. From November through April there is an almost steady drizzle. Moss grows on everything—even cars get a greenish patina and grow furry coats.

Some people cannot take the drizzle. They fall prey to a medical syndrome called SAD, Seasonal Affective Disorder. And they require either a trip to Arizona or a regime of UV light therapy to get their psyche’s back in synch.

Yet others thrive. Despite the endless grey, the dripping damp, the misty vistas, they flourish and grow stronger.

How do they do it? How do some people continue to sizzle when it drizzles?

Well, one way is coffee. Seattle copes with caffeine. There is a reason Starbucks’ warm, frothy, steamy, stimulating brews were developed in this rainy empire. The deep, dark brown of an espresso overwhelms the grey. In Minnesota they embrace the cold and get together to ice-fish. In Seattle they embrace the wet and get together to drink coffee.

So: how to sizzle when it drizzles?

You need three things: an umbrella, some boots, and wipes—whether rubber wipers or cloth wipes.

First, you need an umbrella. When it drizzles, seek out the umbrella of community.

That “getting together” is essential. When your abundant life springs a leak, seek shelter under the communal umbrella. Jesus used the image of sheep, the ultimate herd animal, to describe his people because sheep find identity in community. In the midst of a dark night sheep need to feel the warmth of the herd pressing about them. A lone sheep is a lost sheep.

Michael Blewett, an Anglican priest in St. Louis, tells of a parishioner who hadn’t been to Sunday worship in a while. She rarely missed a Sunday for a couple years. Then she just vanished, without a word. So Father Blewett took her to lunch, where she explained that she was having a crisis of faith.

“So, how’s that going for you?” he asked.

“Not very well.” she admitted.

Father Blewett replied: “Maybe you should try having your crisis of faith in the church with the rest of us. I’m sure you’re not the only one.”

Whether we come together in strength or in weakness, we stand together in Christ. There is no better place to be wet, or wounded, or weary, than in the center of a community that will offer protection and love.

Is there anyone who did not download the incredible video on You-Tube a few months ago that depicted the battle of a herd of wildebeests for the life of one little calf. Attacked first by one then two alligators at the local watering hole, the jaws of a lion pulled the calf out of the water and out of the jaws of the reptiles! Yet just as the lion was preparing to drag away its prize, the herd, the community of huge, well-horned wildebeests, assembled. They surrounded the lion. They charged the lion. They forced the lion to drop its hold on the calf and back off. Then the herd surrounded the calf — horns out. Ultimately the lion and its pride-mates were driven off. And, against all possible odds, against the jaws of alligators and lions, the little calf survived. That is some umbrella: the community of faith who will never desert, never give up, never give you away.

Second, you need some boots. When it drizzles, wear your rubber boots. You need something to keep you from slipping, sliding, and sloshing.

The John 10:10 life has abundant resources for any rainy season. There are no better all-weather resistant resources than the texts and traditions of our faith. Each time you enter into the Scriptures you discover a new source of traction. Bible study is not an exercise for kids in Sunday school. As we wade through the deepest puddles in life, it is the words of our ancestors we recall, the prayers we prayed, the stories of life and faith, which give us a good grip on the slippery surfaces we traverse.

Third, you need wipes. When it drizzles, you need to keep your vision clear.

Arguably the best invention ever for weather was the intermittent wiper blade on a car’s windshield. When the rain is coming down, but not a steady downpour, the every-few-second wiper settings are perfect. Intermittent wipers are slow, occasional, low key, not hot shot. They give you a clear view, but do so by taking life at a different pace.

Sometimes the down and drizzly times in the abundant life are caused by allowing the world to set our pace, to set our agenda, to set our standards. Sometimes we need to clean off our grimy lenses and see beauty, truth and goodness in their original glory and splendor.

“One of the most moving stories I have read in recent times is that told by Martha Beck in her book Expecting Adam. Martha and her husband John were graduate students at Harvard University well on their way to careers of academic distinction. Then Martha became pregnant for the second time and discovered that the baby would almost certainly have Down’s Syndrome. Although not pro-life advocates, or religious in any formal sense, Martha and John decided not to terminate the pregnancy. Expecting Adam tells the story of their struggles, fears and pain. It also tells how the birth of Adam not only changed their understanding of what it means to be a ‘normal’ human being, but also transformed their lives. Near the end of the book Martha writes:

I have discovered that many of the things I though priceless are as cheap as costume jewelry, and much of what I labeled worthless was, all the time, filled with the kind of beauty that directly nourishes my soul. Now I think that the vast majority of us ‘normal’ people spend our lives trashing our treasures and treasuring our trash.

She continues:

Living with Adam, loving Adam, has taught me a lot about the truth. He has taught me to look at things in themselves, not at the value a brutal and often senseless world assigns to them. As Adam’s mother, I have been able to see quite clearly that he is no less beautiful for being called ugly, no less wise for appearing dull, no less precious for being seen as worthless. And neither am I. Neither are you. Neither is any of us. (Martha Beck, Expecting Adam [London: Piatkus, 2004], 317, as referenced in John W. De Gruchy, Confessions of a Christian Humanist (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 5-6.

You can sizzle-when-it-drizzles; you can live a sizzle-when-it-drizzles life if you pick up that umbrella, put on some boots, and wipe your lenses clean and clear to see life as God designed it to be.

Illustrations, Illuminations, Ruminations, Animations, Applications

I don’t like language that refers to “the spiritual life.” In fact, such language of “The Spiritual Life” is part of our problem. There is no spiritual life. There is only life. One life where the spiritual is not separate but the whole.

You might want to contrast The Market God’s “Good Life” vs. The Maker God’s “Abundant Life.”

There is where the whole market morality, and the cult of the Market God, can be challenged and confronted.

Part of whole-life discipleship is a celebration of the simple things like daily food and neighborly conversation, daily life lived in relationship with God as a present reality.

To sizzle when it drizzles . . . .

Don’t spend your time asking WHY it’s raining.

Don’t spend your time complaining about the drizzles . . .

Give the rain some meaning and purpose.

Leonardo Boff says that while there is no meaning in suffering, “we can endow it with meaning.”

Leonardo Boff, Passion of Christ, Passion of the world: The Facts, Their Interpretation, and Their Meaning Yesterday and Today (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1977), 107.

“In When Faith is Tested: Pastoral Response to Suffering and Tragic Death, Jeffrey Zurheide presents five possible frameworks from which to respond. A deterministic framework tries to offer solace with the words, ‘It is God’s will’ (that someone is suffering). The didactic approach conveys the idea that God is teaching something through the suffering. The athletic answer portrays suffering as training, testing, or strengthening experiences sent by God. This disciplinarian framework suggests that a God as parent is punishing or chastising for wrongdoing. The fifth framework offered by Zurheide is a struggle with the question of theodicy resulting in a sense of God’s mystery and incarnational vulnerability. It is the latter that Zurheide suggests is most workable. Using the theological language offered by Karl Barth in his Church Dogmatics, Zurheide focuses on God suffering with us. Through the incarnation, an omnipotent God became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, who lived on this earth: ‘Thus, as Jesus was rejected, God was rejected; as Jesus wept, God wept; as Jesus experienced profound suffering, so also God experienced the same.’”

Some suffering is self-inflicted. Sometimes we rain on our own parade.

A doctor who had recently done an artificial heart transplant was reassuring the recipient’s wife that her husband would soon be well enough to play golf. The wife replied, “Hasn’t the man suffered enough?”

ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Collected Sermons, by Leonard Sweet

Overview and Insights · Jesus, the Good Shepherd (10:1–21)

In the previous episode, the Jewish leaders treat the blind man with contempt. The present section shows how Jesus stands in sharp contrast to these leaders. He is the “gate for the sheep” (10:7) and the “good shepherd” (10:11), whereas the Jewish leaders are “hired hands” (10:12–13) or even “thieves…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

John 10:1-21 · The Shepherd and His Flock

19 At these words the Jews were again divided. 20 Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"

21 But others said, "These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?"

Commentary · The Shepherd and His Flock

The Festival of Dedication now introduces us to the fourth festival of Judaism that Jesus attends and that, like the others, becomes a place of discourse and revelation. Unlike the other feasts, the Feast of Dedication was a minor, more recent celebration. It recalled the desecration of the temple in 168 BC by the Greek monarch Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the corrupt priests installed by him, and the Maccabean wars, which finally regained and purified the temple in 164 BC. A moving account of this is given in 1 Maccabees 4:36–58, which is followed by Judas Maccabeus’s announcement that this dedication (Hanukkah) should be celebrated each winter on the twenty-fifth day of the Jewish month Kislev (November-December).

This Jewish background provides striking depth to the discourse of Jesus in chapter 10. As we have suggested, Jesus has been in Jerusalem since autumn (the Feast of Tabernacles, 7:2–3), and now his conflict with the Jerusalem leadership has reached a peak. Jesus will not publicly debate the Jews again after chapter 10. This final crisis tone is paralleled by the Synoptic account found, for instance, in Matthew 23, where Jesus’s criticisms are extremely biting. The same is found in John 10. After the conflict with the Pharisees in chapter 9, which described them as blind (9:39–41), now they are depicted as false shepherds (10:1, 10, 12–13).

Because the literary division between this festival and the previous one is less clear (cf. 5:1; 6:1; 7:1), scholars are divided on the question of where 10:1–21 should fall. Does it apply to the foregoing (the subject of 10:21 implies this) or to the material in 10:22–39? We have chosen to unify all of chapter 10 under this final feast. There is a strict change of subject at 10:1, and the second half of the chapter still presupposes the sheep metaphor (see 10:26–27). Moreover, the subject of the discourse in 10:1–21 applies directly to the Feast of Dedication, which recalled the corrupt priests of the Greek era (Jason and Menelaus) and had in Jesus’s day evolved into a ceremony of priestly rededication. Synagogues read aloud Ezekiel 34, in which false priests are described as false shepherds. Therefore in a season that studied religious leadership and its historic failings, Jesus gathers up the current metaphor from Ezekiel 34 and interprets it in light of his own mission.

The metaphoric teaching of Jesus in 10:1–21 closely resembles the parables of the Synoptics. The parable is given in 10:1–5, a note of incomprehension is recorded in verse 6, and then Jesus interprets the meaning of the parable (cf. the format of Mark 4). The parable itself discusses the legitimate leaders of the sheep. Just as with the corrupt priests of the Maccabean era, Jesus suggests that there may still be false leaders of God’s people whose intentions are malevolent. Two criteria set apart fraudulent leaders. First, their entry into authority is wrong (10:1). Sheepfolds were often protective stone fences with one access gate. If the gatekeeper (10:3) has not ordained the shepherd’s entry, he is to be feared, not followed. Here Jesus indicates that he alone has true authority because he has obtained the gatekeeper’s invitation. Second, the false leader’s voice cannot be recognized. The intimacy between shepherd and sheep is a well-known Palestinian phenomenon. Sheep can even bear personal names! Here Jesus shows that he alone knows and is known by the sheep. In John this is a central feature of discipleship: discerning Jesus’s voice and abiding in him.

As in other discourses, the failure of the listeners to understand Jesus’s meaning (10:6) leads him to explain himself more fully (cf. 3:9–14; 7:35–39). Initially Jesus affirms that he is the way (“the gate,” 10:7, 9) through which one finds salvation or pasture. This is an advance over the parable, wherein the shepherd is distinguished from the gatekeeper and the gate. Now we learn that Jesus distributes not simply access to leadership but life itself. If the parable has allegorical elements, note that now in the interpretation Jesus assumes a new sovereignty over the fold. Has he assumed divine tasks again? The sheepfold is designed to keep out those who would harm the sheep (10:10), and Jesus is their guardian. He refuses access to many, including those like the Pharisees. These leaders destroy, but God sent Christ so that those who believe might not be destroyed (3:16; 6:39; 17:12).

But Jesus is also the good shepherd (10:11, 14). God is often described as the shepherd of Israel (Gen. 49:24; Ps. 23; 78:52–53), and similarly, the patriarchs, Moses, and David were shepherds. Leadership in Israel meant shepherding, and thus impious Israelite kings were called false shepherds (1 Kings 22:17; Jer. 10:21; 23:1–2; Ezek. 34:1–31). In Mark’s account of the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus is evidently using this same pastoral motif for himself (6:30–44, esp. vv. 34, 39–40). Here in 10:11–18 the superiority of Jesus’s work is given. Not only is his devotion to the sheep such that he is willing to die for them while others flee from danger (10:11–13, 17); he also knows them deeply—so deeply that in 10:15 an appropriate analogy for this knowledge is Jesus’s relationship to his Father. As Jesus is in the Father, so the disciple is in Christ (cf. 14:20, 24).

A variety of secondary themes emerges from these teachings. Is there only one flock of Jesus? Is Judaism the limit of his care? John 10:16 indicates the contrary: “other sheep” refers to members (Gentiles?) beyond Judaism. Is the death of the shepherd something tragic—beyond his control? Not at all. His power enables him voluntarily to die and regain his life (10:18). Elsewhere in the New Testament, God raises up Jesus (Acts 2:24; Rom. 4:24; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 11:19; 1 Pet. 1:21). But in Johannine thought the Father and the Son possess the same powers (10:28–30). The Son controls the hour of death entirely (2:4; 7:6, 8; 8:20).

The responses to Jesus’s discourses have followed a pattern that is seen again here. At Passover, Tabernacles, and now at Dedication, a division erupts among the listeners (6:41, 60; 7:25, 45; 10:19–21). There is no neutral position for one who is faced with Christ’s revelation. Either hostility (10:20) or the seeds of faith (10:21) will follow. Those who believe are ready to cast off the extreme charge of demon possession lodged against Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles (7:20; 8:48). Jesus’s teachings and miracles (esp. 9:1–7) are confirming evidence for them.

With this encounter we reach a sort of crescendo in the Gospel. The evidences accumulating in the Book of Signs will shift following this chapter. No longer will Jesus discourse with the Jewish leaders. He will later be with friends in Bethany (11:1–12:8), supportive crowds (12:12–19), and Gentiles (12:20–36). Then Jesus will “hide himself” from all but his personal disciples (12:36). Here in chapter 10 the height of Jesus’s self-revelation is completed: his identity with the Father is now explicit (10:30, 33) and centered on his claim to the title Son of God (10:34–36). Similarly, the hostilities are keen: twice attempts are made on his life, but he escapes (10:31, 39). This narrative epitomizes Jesus’s ultimate claims about himself and the fateful Jewish reaction (10:22–39).

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

The brief exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees in 9:39–41 is only the beginning of a discourse extending (with one interruption) through most of chapter 10. The pattern found in chapters 5 and 6, a miracle followed by a discourse interpreting it, is maintained here as well. What chapter 10 interprets, however, is not the healing of the blind man as such but the events that followed the healing, that is, the former blind man’s expulsion from the synagogue and his confession of faith in Jesus. Two contrasts dominate the chapter: the contrast between the Pharisees and Jesus as shepherds of the people and the contrast between the Pharisees and the former blind man as recipients of Jesus’ message.

Jesus’ address to the Pharisees has two parts (vv. 1–6 and 7–18), each introduced by the characteristic formula I tell you the truth (vv. 1, 7; cf. 1:51). The first is called a figure of speech (or “parable,” v. 6); the second makes use of the parable’s imagery in two different ways to present yet again the claims of Jesus (vv. 7–10, 11–18). The figure of speech, however, is not what is sometimes designated by the term “parable” (i.e., an imaginative story expanding on a metaphor, often with a surprise ending). Instead, it is simply a generalized description of a scene from a familiar world in first-century Palestine, that of shepherds and sheep herding. Like many of Jesus’ stories in the synoptic Gospels, it could be called a parable of normalcy in that it describes what normally takes place in certain everyday situations. Fasting, for example, is normal when someone dies, but not at a wedding celebration (Mark 2:18–20). Doctors are normally for sick people, not those who are well (Mark 2:17). New wine belongs in new bottles (Mark 2:22). Closer to the imagery of the present passage, if a sheep falls into a pit even on the Sabbath, its owner will pull it out (Matt. 12:11). If a shepherd loses track of even one out of a hundred sheep, he will leave the rest to fend for themselves and go out looking for it (Luke 15:4). If not everyday actions, these are at least normal responses to life’s emergencies.

The figure of speech in verses 1–5 is of the same type. If we see a man climbing over the wall of a sheep pen to get at the sheep, instead of through the gate, it is probably fair to conclude that he is not the shepherd or owner of the sheep (v. 1). The real shepherd enters by the normal way; the gatekeeper (probably an associate or subordinate shepherd) recognizes him, and even the sheep know the sound of his voice. He in turn calls his sheep by name, and because they know his voice he has no trouble driving them out and leading them to pasture (vv. 2–4). This is all normal procedure, but if a stranger tried to lead them out in similar fashion, they would run away from him, frightened at the unfamiliar voice (v. 5).

The point of this brief glimpse of rural Palestinian life is not at once clear. For the moment, the reader can sympathize with the Pharisees (cf. 9:40–41) who heard Jesus tell the story but did not understand what he was telling them (v. 6). There is definitely a contrast between pseudoshepherds and the real shepherd of the flock (v. 1). The contrast is an ancient one in Judaism, as ancient as Ezekiel 34, with its denunciation of Israel’s false leaders (34:1–10) and its proclamation by God himself that he will assume the role of Shepherd over his people (34:11–31). In Jesus’ story, three things distinguish the true shepherd from the false: He enters by the gate, the gatekeeper lets him in, and the sheep recognize his voice. That the most important of these features is the third is shown by its reiteration in verses 3, 4, and 5. The true shepherd, in contrast to a thief and a robber (v. 1), is the one whose voice the sheep recognize and to whom they listen. Applying this understanding to the preceding narrative of the man born blind, we might conclude that Jesus is vindicated as the true shepherd by the fact that the sheep (i.e., the formerly blind man) listened to (and followed) him and not the Pharisees.

This conclusion would have merit if the question being answered by the parable were, Who is the true shepherd? (the answer being, the one who is accepted by the sheep). But the validity of Jesus’ mission in John’s Gospel does not depend on his being accepted by anyone. He is assumed to be both Messiah and true shepherd of Israel regardless of how people respond to him. If this is so, the question to which the parable is primarily addressed is not, Who is the true shepherd? (the answer being obvious—Jesus) but, Who are the sheep? (the answer being, those who hear and obey the true shepherd’s voice). Not shepherds but sheep are being tested in this chapter. Not Jesus but his hearers are on trial. The man born blind proved himself one of God’s flock by trusting in Jesus. How will it turn out for the Pharisees who listen to this story? Jesus has already pronounced them guilty (9:41), and the subsequent discussion will only reinforce that verdict. It remains for Jesus to apply the language of the parable to the ongoing confrontation between himself and the religious authorities of Judaism. The result is not one unified interpretation of the parable but a number of different echoes and extensions of its imagery.

This section of the discourse is introduced by the formula I tell you the truth (v. 7) and terminated by the Jews being divided (Gr.: schisma) over what Jesus has said (vv. 19–21). It has two subsections, each introduced and punctuated by I am pronouncements. The first of these (vv. 7–10) contains the pronouncement I am the gate for the sheep (v. 7) and again, I am the gate (v. 9). The second (vv. 11–18) has the pronouncement I am the good shepherd twice (vv. 11 and 14).

The first subsection immediately answers a question not likely to be asked. A reader might respond to verses 1–6 by asking about the shepherd or the sheep, but probably not about the identification of the gatekeeper (v. 3), much less the gate! And yet Jesus begins his expansion on the parable, not where one might expect, with “I am the shepherd,” but where no one expects, with I am the gate for the sheep (lit., “I am the gate of the sheep”).

It is true that the gate was mentioned with a certain emphasis near the beginning of the story. An entrance to the sheepfold “by the gate” (v. 1) is a legitimate entrance. The gate might therefore be understood as representing legitimation for those who undertake to be “shepherds” (or leaders) among the people of God. Jesus’ pronouncement would then have to be understood as “I am the gate to the sheep” (i.e., those who seek access to God’s people as their leaders must possess an authority derived from Jesus). Interpreted in this way, the pronouncement has possible relevance to the Christian church at the time the Gospel was written, but it is difficult to know how the Pharisees who heard Jesus would have understood it. Moreover, the most natural interpretation of the gate for the sheep is, as that translation suggests, the gate used by the sheep to go in and out, not the gate of access to the sheep. This is supported by verse 9: I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The metaphor of the gate presents Jesus as the way to salvation (cf. 14:6), not as the validator of ministries. He has come in order that those who believe may have life, and have it to the full (v. 10).

The gate metaphor as used in verses 7–10 is only loosely related to the gate mentioned in the story proper. Before he is the gate, Jesus is one who comes (vv. 8, 10). This verb—which is no part of the gate metaphor—takes priority over the metaphor so as to limit and control it. It is as the Coming One—specifically as the Messiah—that Jesus designates himself the gate for the sheep. He is the way to salvation, not passively (as gate by itself might suggest) but actively, as one who comes to save. It is as the Coming One also that he contrasts himself with all who ever came before me whom he describes as thieves and robbers (v. 8), again picking up a phrase from the story itself (v. 1). The purpose of the contrast is to make clear that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Later he will tell his disciples, “no one comes to the Father except through me” (14:6). In a very different context in the Synoptics, he is represented as urging: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matt. 7:13–14; cf. Luke 13:24). To say that all who … came before me were thieves and robbers (v. 8) is simply a different way of saying that all other gates are false and all other ways deceptive. Some have found here an allusion to false messianic pretenders (of which there were a number in Jesus’ time), but the reference is probably not that specific.

The repetition of the “I am” statement provides a framework within which two distinct points are made. The first statement (v. 7) is followed by the contrast between Jesus and all contrary teachers and teachings (v. 8). The second (v. 9a) is followed by an appropriate description of a gate’s function: It provides sheep a way into the fold for safety and a way out for freedom and pasture (v. 9b). This is Jesus’ function as well: He provides his followers with protection from harm and with abundant life (vv. 9b–10). The contrast with thieves is here repeated, for they do exactly the opposite. They steal and kill and destroy (v. 10a).

A similar pattern exists in verses 11–18. The first instance of I am the good shepherd (v. 11) is followed by a contrast with the shepherd who is not so good (i.e., the hired hand, vv. 12–13). The second (v. 14a) is followed by a description of how a good shepherd functions, explicitly referring to the actual redemptive work of Jesus (vv. 14b–18). The unmistakable thrust of the passage is that Jesus is a shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. This assertion is made right at the outset as the very definition of good (v. 11) and again in the middle as part of a revelation or prophecy of the saving work that Jesus is about to accomplish (v. 15). The last two verses in their entirety are then devoted to examining the assertion more closely and reflecting on it theologically (vv. 17–18).

This subsection contains a number of features not found in the introductory parable at all. The hired hand of verses 11–13 is not to be equated with the thieves and robbers mentioned in the parable (v. 1) and in the gate polemic of verse 8. Their role is taken over instead by the wolf (v. 12) who attacks the flock and scatters it. The hired man is introduced solely for the sake of the contrast with the good shepherd. The difference between them is that a good shepherd will risk his life to protect the sheep, while a hireling will not. They are not his property and livelihood, after all (v. 12), and their fate does not matter to him in the same way it does to the shepherd. The hired man does not symbolically represent a particular group in Israel (e.g., the Pharisees), nor is the description of him intended as an indictment of Israel’s leaders. He is in the discourse only to highlight the fact that, by contrast, a good shepherd lays down his life to rescue his sheep from predators. These predators—the thieves and robbers and the marauding wolf—are the real enemies of the flock and of the shepherd. Who do they represent? To Jesus, all the forces of evil that he came to overthrow: the demons, or unclean spirits, he drove out of those who were possessed; the “strong man” whom he claimed in one of his parables to have bound and whose captives he claimed to have set free (Mark 3:27); the religious authorities who charged that he himself was in league with Satan (Mark 3:22), and who finally engineered his arrest and execution. To the narrator, the enemies of the sheep represent those same religious authorities, who were already trying to kill Jesus (cf. 5:18; 8:40) and were expelling his followers from the synagogues (9:22, 34) The same group will later condemn him to death and afterward kill, as well as expel from the synagogue, his disciples—all in the name of piety (16:2–3)! The wolf, as well as the thieves and robbers, represents in this Gospel the encroachments of the evil “world,” in all its alienation from God, against the followers of Jesus (cf. 15:18–25). It is from the “world” that the sheep need to be protected (cf. 16:33; 17:11, 14–16), and Jesus the shepherd will risk his life, even give his life, to protect and save them.

The notion of the shepherd endangering his life for the sake of the sheep turns almost imperceptibly from a metaphor to a reality as the discourse unfolds. The picture in verse 11 is of a shepherd who lays down his life in defense of his sheep by fighting off the attacking wolf. Verses 11–13 are an extended metaphor, actually a self-contained story matching the figure of speech in verses 1–5. At the very least they provide a double character sketch (i.e., of the shepherd and of the hired man), but more than that, they give a real picture of a wolf attacking a flock of sheep, with the hired man running away to save his own life. The key to the interpretation of the story is given first: I am the good shepherd (v. 11a). Then the story is told, as a parable should be, entirely in the third person: The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep … (v. 11b).

The story continues through verse 13, but verses 14–16 are different. The repetition of I am the good shepherd necessarily brings Jesus back to the use of the first person, but this time he continues that usage: I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep … I have other sheep … I must bring them also. This is no longer a parable or figure of speech, but a self-revelation of the Son. Though it uses metaphors, it is not itself metaphorical; it is intended, rather, as a literal description of reality. It has nothing to do with shepherds and sheep and everything to do with Jesus and with his disciples, his Father, and Jesus’ redemptive death. When Jesus speaks of the mutual knowledge between himself and the Father and between himself and the disciples (v. 15), his words recall his self-revelation in Matthew 11:27: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” When he claims to lay down his life for his sheep (v. 15), it is clear that he is no longer speaking of fighting physically against wolves, but of dying on the cross to redeem those who believe in him. And when he promises to bring other sheep that are not of this sheep pen (v. 16), he is anticipating the church’s mission to the Gentiles after his death and resurrection (cf. the narrator’s explicit reference to this mission in 11:52). Verses 14–16 thus comprise an unmistakable, though partial, summary of Jesus’ mission from its beginning (as the Father knows me and I know the Father) to its full realization in history (one flock and one shepherd, cf. 11:52; 17:20–23). This summary comes, not from Jesus’ disciples in the form of a creed, but from his own lips as revelation.

Yet there is a certain illogic in all this. How can Jesus die and still be able to gather his sheep into one flock? A crucial link in the chain of redemptive events is missing. Jesus must be raised from the dead. The main point of the passage is that Jesus’ death results in the unity of the flock, but the unspoken assumption is that unity is possible only because of his resurrection. Instead of death followed by resurrection, the pattern is death followed by the gathering of a community, with resurrection as the unspoken link between the two. The same pattern is found in Mark 14:27–28, where Jesus tells his disciples, “It is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” Here the resurrection is mentioned only in a subordinate clause, and in John 11:52 it is not mentioned at all (“Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, … for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one”).

In the present passage the resurrection becomes explicit in verses 17–18. Jesus explains that he will lay down his life only to take it up again (v. 17). Unlike the stricken shepherd of Zechariah 13:7 (the Scripture cited in Mark 14:27), Jesus here presents himself as one who dies willingly and at his own initiative: No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again (v. 18). His own life, like all life (cf. 5:21, 26), is at his disposal. If “the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it” (5:21), it is no surprise that he takes back his own life from the grip of death. And yet the Son is not autonomous (cf. 5:19, 30). Whether in dying, rising from the dead, or gathering a new community, Jesus acts always at his Father’s command (v. 18b; cf. 14:31). He has authority to do only what the Father wants done. But because the command and the authority are grounded in the Father’s love for the Son (cf. 3:35; 5:20), love is also the Father’s response to Jesus’ faithful completion of the good shepherd’s task (v. 17a).

The brief discourse ends in Jesus’ hearers (vv. 19–21) being divided (Gr.: schisma; cf. 7:43; 9:16). It is significant that what divides them is not only the implicit claim he has just made of a unique relationship to God but also the stubborn fact that he has given sight to the blind (v. 21). The issue raised by the blind man himself in the preceding chapter is still very much alive (9:32–33). Both the words and the works of Jesus continue to challenge his audience and force them toward decision.

Additional Notes

10:3 His own sheep: Some have argued from this phrase that sheep belonging to several shepherds or owners are grouped in one sheepfold. But the phrase “the shepherd of his sheep” in v. 2 suggests, rather, that all the sheep belong to the one shepherd.

The words his own (which occur also in the Greek of v. 4) are therefore somewhat redundant, and it is possible that they have been chosen with the application to Jesus already in view. Jesus’ disciples are his own in a very special and intimate sense (cf. 13:1; and contrast 1:11, where “his own did not receive him.” In the latter part of John’s Gospel, Jesus’ “own” come to be identified instead with the group mentioned in 1:12 who “believed in his name” and received “the right to become children of God”).

10:4 Has brought out all his own. This verse specifies just how the shepherd leads them out (v. 3): He enters the sheepfold and literally pushes or drives them through the gate; then when they are out, he goes on in front of them to guide them to pasture. The Greek word for brought (ekballein) is the same word used for expulsion from the synagogue in 9:34–35, but the parallel is probably coincidental. There is no particular intent here to contrast the “pastoral care” of Jesus with the harsh discipline of the Pharisees.

10:7 I am the gate for the sheep. One ancient papyrus and certain ancient versions read “the shepherd of the sheep.” This reading seems to have resulted from scribes being misled by the contrast with “thieves and robbers” into assuming that the shepherd must be in view here. But gate is correct.

10:8 Before me: These words are not meant as part of the gate metaphor (i.e., before, or in front of, the gate, seeking entrance; cf., e.g., James 5:9). They are meant temporally: Those who up to now have offered ways of salvation are thieves and robbers.

10:9 Come in and go out: The emphasis here is on the freedom of the sheep to come and go as their needs dictate. The shepherd provides them with both protection and pasture. It is not a question of entering and leaving the realm of salvation.

10:10 That they may have life, and have it to the full: The NIV correctly indicates that the last phrase is rhetorical. There are not two stages of Christian experience: life, and full or abundant life. The only spiritual life this Gospel knows is life to the full. It is the “eternal life” that Jesus gives, the only genuine life there is. The close connection between life and freedom recalls 8:32–36.

10:11 Lays down his life [lit., “soul”]. The meaning is that a good shepherd will risk his life (we might say he “puts his life on the line”) for his sheep.

The same idiom in vv. 15, 17 (“lay down my life”) and v. 18 (“lay it down”) refers to actual death (the death of Jesus on the cross), not the mere danger of death.

10:16 Other sheep: J. A. T. Robinson (Twelve New Testament Studies [Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1962], p. 121) has argued that the other sheep are Greek-speaking Jews dispersed throughout the world, but the emphasis in John’s Gospel on Jesus’ mission to the whole world and not just the Jews (e.g., 1:10; 4:42; 12:32) strongly favors their identification as Gentiles (cf. 7:35).

10:17 For an example of a very early Gnostic reading of this passage, cf. Gospel of Philip 9: “Not only when he appeared did he lay down the soul when he wished, but from the day the world came into being he laid down the soul. At the time when he wished, then he came first to take it, since it had been left as a pledge. It was under the robbers and had been taken captive. But he saved it.” (The Gospel of Philip, trans. R. McL. Wilson, [London: A. R. Mowbray, 1962] pp. 29, 71). Side by side with the literal interpretation stands a speculation about the imprisonment of souls in corrupt bodies until Christ comes to retrieve them (a confusion of the redeemer with the redeemed). The mention of “robbers” echoes John 10:1.

10:19 The Jews were again divided. In all likelihood the same audience is in view here as in 9:40–41 and 10:6, i.e., the Pharisees or the Jewish religious leaders, not the people as a whole. Even among the Pharisees there were those who respected Jesus’ power to heal (v. 21; cf. 9:16b).

Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by J. Ramsey Michaels, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Demon

In Gen. 3 the serpent entices humankind to sin. Not until Rev. 12:9 are we told explicitly that the serpent is Satan.

In the OT, “evil spirit” may be a heavenly being sent by God (1 Sam. 16:14 23; 18:10; 19:9; cf. 1 Kings 22:22–23). The OT engages in extensive rebuke of the superstitions of the surrounding nations that included belief in demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; perhaps Isa. 13:21; cf. Rev. 18:2).

Jesus’ encounter with the devil in the wilderness recalls Adam and Eve’s encounter with the serpent in Eden. The setting, significantly, is now a wasteland. The second man to walk the earth with no sin claims the right to take back the dominion that Adam passed to the serpent. Jesus can have the whole world (without the cross) if only he will submit to the devil’s rule (Luke 4:5–7). Jesus rejects the offer. Later, he sees Satan’s fall from heaven to earth (Luke 10:18; cf. Rev. 12:5–12). Whereas once the devil had access to God’s courtroom, now his case is lost. His only recourse is murderous persecution. Between the ascension of the Son of Man (Acts 1:9) and the final judgment, this is understood to be the experience of Christ’s people (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 12:17; cf. 1 Pet. 5:8).

Whereas the OT provides sparse information about Satan and his angels/demons, the NT opens with an intensity of activity. Demons are also called “evil spirits,” and they are associated with physical illness, madness, and fortune-telling. In Acts 17:22 Paul describes his pagan Athenian listeners as “demon-fearers” (NIV: “religious”). Jesus’ miracles demonstrate his lordship over Satan’s regime as the demons flee in terror before him (Mark 1:23–26; 5:1–15). According to Paul, Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), and John urges believers to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1), assuring them that they need not fear Satan or his forces, “because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.” (1 John 4:4). On judgment day Satan will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14–15) along with all of God’s enemies.

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.

Gate

A controlled point of entry into an otherwise enclosed area such as a city (Gen. 34:24; Ps. 122:2; Acts 9:24), camp (Exod. 32:26 27), tabernacle court (Exod. 35:17), palace (2 Kings 11:19), temple area (Jer. 36:10; Ezek. 40), prison (Acts 12:10), or house (Acts 10:17).

In the OT, the city gate has a central role in that city’s military, economic, judicial, political, and religious aspects of life. A key component of the defense system of a city, the gate consists of doors fortified with bars (Judg. 16:3; Ps. 107:16; Nah. 3:13) and keeps invading armies out while also serving as the point of departure and return for the city’s army (2 Sam. 18:4; cf. God the warrior entering in Ps. 24:7–8). The gate also may serve as the location where news of the battle is delivered (1 Sam. 4:18; 2 Sam. 18:24). The destruction of the city gate usually means the destruction of the city (Isa. 24:12).

In the economic life of the city, the gate functions as a place of commerce (Gen. 23; 2 Kings 7:1) and music (Lam. 5:14). At the entrance to the city gate, the city elders assembled daily to hear cases and render judgment (Job 29:7; Prov. 24:7). Along with the elders, there might be additional witnesses (Ruth 4:1–11; Ps. 69:12). For criminal cases, the gate may also be the location where punishment is enacted (Deut. 17:5; 22:24). Thus, the gate is to be a place where all people can come to obtain justice (2 Sam. 15:2–4; Isa. 29:21; Amos 5:15). The gate may hold a seat reserved for the king (2 Sam. 19:8) as well as the king’s officials (Esther 2:19–21; 3:2–3). The city gate might also contain shrines to various gods (2 Kings 23:8; cf. Acts 14:13).

Some references to gates refer to those of the temple area (Ezek. 44; 46; Pss. 100:4; 118:19–20). In Ezek. 48 the temple area is to have twelve gates, each named after a tribe of Israel (Ezek. 48:30–35; cf. Rev. 21:12–25). The prophet Jeremiah proclaims the word of the Lord from both the city gate(s) (Jer. 17:19–27) and the temple gate(s) (7:1–4).

In the NT, Jesus raises the dead son of a widow at the town gate (Luke 7:11–17) and heals a lame man near the Sheep Gate (John 5:1–15). Peter heals a crippled man near the temple gate (Acts 3:1–10). Jesus mentions gates in his teaching, including a call to enter through the narrow gate of life (Matt. 7:13–14), and his parable of the sheep and the gate, in which Jesus refers to himself as the gate (John 10:1–18). See also City Gates.

Hireling

A laborer who contracted himself out for temporary jobs (“hireling” is used in the KJV, whereas more-recent versions use “hired man/worker, laborer”). It could be as short-term as one day. In the OT, there are warnings against oppressing hirelings, since they were among the socially disadvantaged (Deut. 24:14 15; Mal. 3:5). Jesus told a parable about workers hired throughout the day, all of whom received the full day’s wage, to teach God’s grace-oriented approach to rewarding his servants (Matt. 20:1–16). Elsewhere, the hireling became a metaphor for uncaring “shepherds” motivated by self-interest (John 10:11–15).

I Am

The divine name, YHWH, revealed to Moses (Exod. 3:14) is related to hayah, the Hebrew verb for “to be.” The LXX renders this name with the phrase “I am” (egō eimi), which later OT writings employ as a title for God (Isa. 43:25; 51:12; 52:6).

A significant feature in the Fourth Gospel is John’s record of seven predicated “I am” statements within Jesus’ teaching: “I am the bread of life” (6:35); “I am the light of the world” (8:12); “I am the gate for the sheep” (10:7); “I am the good shepherd” (10:11); “I am the resurrection and the life” (11:25); “I am the way and the truth and the life” (14:6); and “I am the true vine” (15:1). With each metaphor Jesus expresses a contrast between himself and another. For instance, Jesus’ claim to be the bread of life differentiates him from the manna that appeared in the wilderness (6:49), while his identification as the good shepherd stands in contrast to the hired hand who abandons the sheep in a time of trouble (10:12 13). In these instances “I am” is likely an intentional choice meant to echo the divine name and reveal Jesus’ relationship of unity with God the Father.

The meaning of additional unpredicated but emphatic “I am” declarations in Greek by Jesus is debated (Mark 6:50; 14:62; Luke 24:39; John 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5). In response to Jesus’ declaration of “I am,” the high priest accuses him of blasphemy (Mark 14:64), the Jews desire to stone him (John 8:59), and the officials who come to arrest him “[draw] back and [fall] to the ground” (John 18:6). These reactions suggest that at least some who heard Jesus utter these words interpreted them as his claim to equality with God (cf. John 5:18).

Sheepfold

A sheepfold is an enclosure used to confine livestock, either near inhabited areas (Num. 32:16) or in the open country (1 Sam. 24:3). Referring to the protective function of sheepfolds, Jesus refers to himself as the gate of a sheepfold (John 10:1, 9, 16), who keeps his flock from bandits.

Shepherd

Shepherds were pastoralists who herded sheep and goats for meat, milk, clothing, and sacrifices. Shepherding was an integral part of life and a potent symbol in Israelite culture, reflected in biblical portrayals of Abel (Gen. 4:2), Moses (Exod. 3:1), David (1 Sam. 16:11), and Jesus (Luke 2:8 20; John 10:11, 14).

A shepherd could herd his or her own flock (Gen. 30:37–43). Sons (Gen. 37:2), daughters (Gen. 29:6, 9), or hirelings (Gen. 13:7; 1 Sam. 25:7; Luke 17:7) could assume the task. As agriculture developed and crops were cultivated, shepherds became marginalized (note that it was the youngest son of Jesse, David, who tended the sheep [1 Sam. 16:11–13]) and even despised (Gen. 46:34). Shepherds could live in villages, daily herding their flock to and from nearby arable land (Gen. 29:7–14). Once all the grazing land had been consumed, shepherds led the flock to pastureland far enough from town to prohibit daily returns. They would then live a seminomadic existence, wandering when new grazing land and water were needed (Gen. 37:12; cf. Isa. 13:20). Shepherds constructed makeshift enclosures out of available materials (stones, brush) or used a cave and remained with the flock throughout the night (Gen. 31:40; Song 1:8; Luke 2:8)

The vital role of shepherding in ancient Near Eastern culture naturally led to the metaphorical use of the term to refer to both civil authorities (Num. 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; Isa. 44:28; Ezek. 34:1–19) and deity (Gen. 48:15; 49:24; Pss. 23:1; 78:52), both in Israel and among its neighbors. Both the exodus (Exod. 15:13, 17; Ps. 78:52–55, 71–72) and the return from Babylonian exile (Ps. 44:11–23; Jer. 23:1–8; 31:8–14) are portrayed in pastoral terms as Yahweh shepherding his people to safe pasture. In the NT, Jesus called himself the “good shepherd” (John 10:1–16), and the metaphor is extended to church leaders who are to imitate the good shepherd in their provision and protection of God’s people (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1–3).

Watchman

The watchman was stationed on the city wall or in a watchtower. He was to identify potential enemies approaching the city and alert the city’s inhabitants by blowing a trumpet (Jer. 6:17; Amos 3:6). It was the duty of some watchmen to inform the king of any suspicious person approaching the city wall (2 Sam. 18:24 27). Just as the watchman warned of potential danger so that people could prepare themselves, so the prophet was to warn of impending judgment on the unrighteous (Ezek. 33:1–11).

Direct Matches

Demon Possession

The Gospels list demon possession among the maladies that Jesus and his disciples (and later the apostles) cured (e.g., Matt. 4:24). While the NT does not offer an explicit theory of demon possession or an account of how it differs from illnesses with nondemonic causes, the Gospels are rich in descriptions of the suffering of the demon-possessed. Demons caused muteness (Matt. 9:32–33; Luke 11:14), blindness (Matt. 12:22), and seizures (Matt. 17:15; Luke 4:35; 9:42), as well as symptoms that moderns associate with various forms of mental illness, including strange verbal outbursts (Matt. 8:28–34; Luke 4:34). The story of the Gerasene demoniac is especially troubling (Luke 8:26–39 pars.). The demoniac (or demoniacs, according to Matt. 8:28) wore no clothes, lived outside his city among the tombs, howled, cut himself with stones, and shouted under the control of the demons. He was able to break chains that were placed on his body as restraints. Many demoniacs who appear in the Gospels are men, but demon possession also affected women (Matt. 15:22–28). The Gospels do not describe the onset of demon possession.

In addition to these descriptions of demon possession, the recorded perceptions of Jesus’ contemporaries offer insight into how it was understood in antiquity. Some thought that John the Baptist was demon-possessed (Matt. 11:18; Luke 7:33) because he “came neither eating nor drinking”—that is, he adhered to an extreme ascetic diet and lifestyle. Jesus was thought to derive his power to cast out demons from collusion with Beelzebul (Mark 3:22). In the Gospel of John, in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ ability to heal leads his contemporaries to the opposite conclusion, that he is not demon-possessed (John 10:20–21). Instead, the charge of demon possession in the Gospel of John stems from the perception that Jesus’ religious teachings were unorthodox (John 8:48–52). Paul also correlates heresy with demonic influence (1 Tim. 4:1).

It is important to note that in the NT, demon possession is almost always portrayed as a terrible affliction. The idea of harnessing the power of a demon for one’s own benefit, which was widespread in antiquity and the Middle Ages, is not a major focus in the NT, though it is reflected in the story of the girl who was possessed by a fortune-telling spirit (Acts 16:16) and in cases in which Jesus’ contemporaries attributed (falsely) his healing power to demonic possession.

Demonic Possession

Door

Nineteenth-century BC Egyptian reliefs show city gates in Syria-Palestine. Arched gates were found in the second millennium BC. A door (Heb. petakh) often had side posts, a top post (lintel), and a threshold. The temple door was made of juniper wood (1 Kings 6:34). Doorposts and lintels (Heb. mashqop) are mentioned in the story of the exodus (Exod. 12:7, 22–23).

Doors separated external and internal space. In the OT story of the flood, the ark contained a door (petakh; Gen. 6:16). God closed the door behind those inside the ark (Gen. 7:16), separating them from the outside world.

In the Greco-Roman world, doors represented turning points. Janus, the Roman god of doors (Lat. ianua), prevented evil from entering the home. Janus had two faces, one looking inward and one looking outward. The Romans named a month after Janus, Januarius, at the turn of their year, as a door between past and future.

In Matthew, a door (thyra) separated the unprepared from the prepared in kingdom life (Matt. 25:10–12). Likewise, life and destruction were separated by a door or gate (Matt. 7:13–14; Luke 13:24). The NT records Jesus referring to himself as “the door” (John 10:1–9 ESV, NASB; NIV: “gate”) and, in turn, standing at the door of preparedness by (Matt. 24:33; Mark 13:29) and in fellowship with (Rev. 3:20) his followers.

Flock

In the Bible, flocks generally consisted of herds of either sheep or goats or a combination of the two. Flocks were raised throughout the time span of the Bible and were a very important source of food, clothing, and economic wealth. They were highly adaptable to both the nomadic lifestyle of the patriarchs and the more settled culture of first-century AD life. Both animals provided meat, milk, cheese, wool, and leather for the people of Palestine. As evidenced by the large number of times the word “flock” is used in the Bible, flocks were an important part of life. Usually, it was the children’s task to care for the flocks and protect them from predators, as David did when he watched his father’s flocks (1 Sam. 17:34–37). In the NT, Jesus metaphorically calls himself the “good shepherd” (John 10:11). Christians under the care of a pastor were also often identified as flocks (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2).

Gate

A controlled point of entry into an otherwise enclosed area such as a city (Gen. 34:24; Ps. 122:2; Acts 9:24), camp (Exod. 32:26–27), tabernacle court (Exod. 35:17), palace (2 Kings 11:19), temple area (Jer. 36:10; Ezek. 40), prison (Acts 12:10), or house (Acts 10:17).

A city may have more than one gate (Jer. 17:19), each having a different name. For example, when Nehemiah sets out to rebuild the wall and gates of Jerusalem, there is mention of the Valley Gate, the Dung Gate, and the Fountain Gate (Neh. 2:11–17) as well as the Sheep Gate (3:1) and the Jeshanah Gate (3:6).

Good

Whereas the Greeks identified the good as an abstract ideal toward which people should strive in all their actions, the Bible identifies goodness as an attribute of God, who is personal (Ps. 25:8–10). Therefore, God is the ultimate standard of goodness.

Creation itself expresses God’s goodness. Human beings are fearfully and wonderfully made (Ps. 139:14). We have been given the capacity to enjoy the many blessings of God’s creation (Ps. 145:9, 16), and to bring the potentialities of creation to their full expression by cultivating and subduing the earth (Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8). We are created in God’s image to do good by living according to God’s purposes. Evil came into the world when Adam and Eve looked to something in creation instead of God as the source of ultimate good (Gen. 3).

In his goodness, God has chosen goodness. If we were to shine God’s goodness through a prism, its color spectrum would include love, mercy, grace, kindness, faithfulness, righteousness, beauty, and perfection to redeem his people, who have lost their capacity for good through sin. Jesus is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11). God showers his benevolence upon both the evil and the good (Matt. 5:45). For believers, God uses everything, even their suffering, to bring about their good, namely, Christlikeness (Rom. 8:28–29).

Hireling

A laborer who contracted himself out for temporary jobs (“hireling” is used in the KJV, whereas more-recent versions use “hired man/worker, laborer”). It could be as short-term as one day. In the OT, there are warnings against oppressing hirelings, since they were among the socially disadvantaged (Deut. 24:14–15; Mal. 3:5). Jesus told a parable about workers hired throughout the day, all of whom received the full day’s wage, to teach God’s grace-oriented approach to rewarding his servants (Matt. 20:1–16). Elsewhere, the hireling became a metaphor for uncaring “shepherds” motivated by self-interest (John 10:11–15).

Porter

In older versions of the Bible, the translation for words meaning “gatekeeper” (e.g., 2 Sam. 18:26; 2 Kings 7:10–11; 1 Chron. 9:17–18; Ezra 2:42; John 10:3); also “doorkeeper” (Mark 13:34 [NIV: “the one at the door”]).

Sheep

A cultically clean, domesticated animal representing the wealth and livelihood of many in biblical times. Mentioned more than any other animal in the Bible, sheep were critical to ancient Israel’s rural economy, with both the animal itself and the wool it produced serving as one of the measurements of a person’s prosperity (1 Sam. 25:2; Ezek. 27:18). Sheep were useful throughout Israel’s history, especially during the patriarchal period (Gen. 46:32), providing milk to drink (Deut. 32:14), wool and hide for clothing (Job 31:20; Heb. 11:37) and tent coverings (Exod. 26:14), and meat to eat (Deut. 14:4). Usually, male lambs from eight days old (Lev. 22:27) and year-old sheep served as various sacrifice offerings to God: the Passover celebration (Exod. 12:5), burnt offerings (Lev. 1:10), sin offerings (Lev. 5:6), guilt offerings (Lev. 5:15), and fellowship offerings (Lev. 3:6), though the firstborn of the flock belonged to God (Exod. 13:12). Their fat tails were the prized portion of the sheep offered as burnt offerings (Lev. 3:9).

Naturally gentle and submissive (Jer. 11:19), sheep are predisposed to becoming easily lost or led astray (Isa. 53:6; Matt. 9:36). Because sheep are social animals that gather in clusters, a shepherd can easily lead a large flock. The animal’s defenselessness against those who would steal its coat or demand its life is pictured in Isa. 53:7. In order to protect sheep against predators, a shepherd provided a protective area, or fold, which might be a cave or an enclosure of rough stones. A unique relationship existed between shepherd and sheep: the shepherd knew each animal by name, and the sheep could recognize the shepherd’s voice (John 10:1–11). Sheep therefore serve as a fitting metaphor for God’s people (Ps. 100:3), suggesting that God’s people are naive and utterly dependent on their shepherd for divine guidance and protection (Matt. 12:11; Luke 15:4). Jesus promises that not a single one of his sheep can be snatched from his Father’s hand (John 10:29). Even though God’s sheep wander, “the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” restores (1 Pet. 2:25).

In a charade, false prophets are described as donning “sheep’s clothing,” a symbol of innocence, and appearing to be members of God’s flock (Matt. 7:15). By contrast, the true disciples who are to go to the sheep—the lost people of Israel (9:36; 10:6)—are now sent out as sheep among wolves (10:16–19), but they are aptly protected.

Jesus is represented as the Lamb of God (John 1:29; Rev. 5:6; cf. Isa. 53:7), provided by God for the sins of the world, the ultimate fulfillment of the yearly Passover lamb (Exod. 12; 1 Cor. 5:7). Jesus is the good shepherd of all sheep, and he most profoundly demonstrates his commitment and love for the sheep: “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11).

Sheep Gate

A gate of Jerusalem restored by Nehemiah (Neh. 3:1, 32; 12:39). It was located on the northeast side of the city. In NT times a large pool, named “Bethesda,” was built near the Sheep Gate, where Jesus healed a lame man on the Sabbath (John 5:1–9). Today, this gate has the modern sheep market, possibly a tradition from earlier times. In John 10, Jesus identifies himself as the gate for the sheep; those who enter through him are true sheep, but all others are thieves and robbers.

Sheepfold

A sheepfold is an enclosure used to confine livestock, either near inhabited areas (Num. 32:16) or in the open country (1 Sam. 24:3). Several Greek and Hebrew words describe such enclosures and may be translated as “sheepfold.” Depending on context, these words can also be translated “wall,” “pasture,” “courtyard,” or simply “habitation.” The use of the English word “sheepfold” is therefore a matter of context rather than of specific terminology in the original biblical languages.

Referring to the protective function of sheepfolds, Jesus refers to himself as the gate of a sheepfold (John 10:1, 9, 16), who keeps his flock from bandits. Shepherds may have used sheepfolds particularly at night. On several occasions, the OT prophets speak of Israel as a flock, and of the land of Israel as its “fold” or “pasture,” so that the gathering of exiled Israelites is likened to the shepherd’s ingathering of animals into their pen (see Jer. 23:3; Mic. 2:12).

Shepherd

A shepherd’s tools included a clublike rod used to guard the flock and fend off predators and thieves (Gen. 31:39; Isa. 31:4; Mic. 7:14) and as a tool for dividing the flock (Lev. 27:32; Jer. 33:13); a crook or staff to retrieve strays and injured (Ezek. 34:16; Zech. 11:7); a sling and some sort of pouch (1 Sam. 17:40); and even dogs (Job 30:1). A shepherd was held accountable for any losses in the flock and was required to pay restitution (Gen. 31:39; Exod. 22:10–13).

Steal

The acquisition of another’s property by force or threat. This crime was perpetrated by bandits (Hos. 7:1), often through ambush (Judg. 9:25). In Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan, the robbers’ attack leaves the victim half dead (Luke 10:30). The eighth commandment’s prohibition against stealing (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19) certainly includes robbery, which is explicitly condemned in Lev. 19:13. OT law does not distinguish robbery from theft, which is done by stealth or deception, likely because the unlawful seizure of another’s goods was seen as a civil crime and the legal emphasis was on the restitution of property along with some compensation for distress, which varied according to the item stolen and served as a deterrent to thieves (Exod. 22:1, 4; Lev. 6:1–7). If unable to make restitution, the criminal could be sold into slavery to pay the debt (Exod. 22:3). Should the violence of robbery result in injury, laws concerning personal injury applied (Exod. 21:23–25; Lev. 24:19–20). In fact, under certain conditions, the law addresses an injured thief as the victim and not the perpetrator of violence (Exod. 22:2–3). The two men crucified with Jesus are traditionally described as “robbers” (Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27), though in this case the Greek word (lēstēs) likely refers to rebels or insurrectionists (NLT: “revolutionaries”). This was the Roman authorities’ way of casting them as common criminals rather than as freedom fighters.

God declares his hatred for robbery, contrasting it with justice (Isa. 61:8). Robbery is often an example of injustice, especially when perpetrated upon the poor (Isa. 10:2; Ezek. 22:29). Rescuing a victim from a robber is enjoined as a just action (Jer. 21:12; 22:3), one for which God himself deserves praise (Ps. 35:10). God describes himself as the victim of robbery as he accuses Israel of stealing from him by withholding its tithes (Mal. 3:8–9).

Greek has two different words to distinguish a robber (lēstēs) from a thief (kleptēs). In the NT, robbery appears primarily as a metaphor. Jesus uses it to represent false prophets (John 10:1, 8), his own plunder of Satan’s house (Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27), and, in a reference from Jer. 7:11, those seeking economic gain in the temple (Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46).

Wolf

A wild carnivore (species Canis lupus) that lives and hunts in packs. The Bible refers separately to dogs, foxes, jackals, and hyenas. Wolves were reported as late as the 1900s in the Carmel and Galilee regions of Israel, and in Scripture the wolf (Heb. ze’eb; Gk. lykos) stands out as a savage predator (Gen. 49:27; Jer. 5:6; Zeph. 3:3). In the NT, wolves occur only to symbolize danger for Christians (Matt. 7:15; 10:16; Luke 10:3; John 10:12; Acts 20:29).

Word

“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to the speech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of these uses, God desires to make himself known to his people. The communication of God is always personal and relational, whether he speaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address an individual directly (Gen. 2:16–17; Exod. 3:14). The prophets and the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John 16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatest revelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).

The primary focus of this article is the written form of the word of God, the Bible. The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternal object of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119), and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word is particularized and intimately connected with God himself by means of the key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,” and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Our understanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms and contexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found in Psalm 119.

Theology of the Word

From the perspective of many systematic theologians, the word of God is defined with several essential labels. The word is the special revelation of God to humans—specifically, truth communicated from God to his human creatures by supernatural intervention, including a disclosure of his mind and will, his attributes, and his redemptive plans. This revealed word is inspired. Inspiration is an act of the Holy Spirit of God whereby he superintended the biblical authors so that they composed the canonical books of Scripture. Inspiration is verbal and plenary in that it extends to every part of the Bible and includes the choice of words used by the authors.

The word of God is inerrant, free from error in every matter addressed, and infallible, true in every matter addressed. The locus of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility is the original manuscripts and not the translations. A translation is reliable when it accurately reflects the meaning of the inspired originals (Matt. 5:18; cf. John 10:35; 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). And finally, the word is authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God reliably composed in the originals without error, it is binding upon people in their relationship with their God as well as their relationships with their fellow human beings. Biblical authority derives from the eternal character of the divine author and the revelatory content of the Scriptures.

Psalm 119

A key OT text extolling the word is Psalm 119 (cf. Pss. 1; 19). The writer glorifies God, his word, and his divine directions to people by means of an acrostic format that covers the subject of Torah meditation. Eight synonyms are used for the “word” in the psalm. The eight are translated in the NIV as “words” (v. 57), “promise” (v. 58), “statutes” (v. 59), “commands” (v. 60), “law” (v. 61), “laws” (v. 62), “precepts” (v. 63), and “decrees” (v. 64).

The Ps. 119 word vocabulary informs us that God has pierced the darkness of our existence with the light of his word to make himself known to us. The word is his word spoken to us and preserved for us. The psalm also instructs us that the word is the will of God. When God pierced our darkness, he lit the path of freedom for us with his word. He described himself, defined righteousness, declared his love, announced his promises, and issued his warnings. Finally, the vocabulary establishes the authority of his word in our lives. Directions, commandments, laws, charges, and divine will ring with the sound of authority. The word of God is an authoritative proclamation from God to us that must be obeyed, that must be sought, that cannot be ignored.

Finally, Ps. 119 makes an intimate connection between the content of the word, things spoken, and the author of the things spoken. This connection better enables us to understand the “Word” as the person of Jesus Christ in John 1. The progressive development of verses 1–2 of Ps. 119 intimately connects the law of God, his statutes, and him, the one sought with all the heart. Verses 89–96 emphasize the durability and eternality of the word in keeping with the eternal character of God. In verse 114 the writer parallels God as refuge with putting hope in his word. Here the writer intimately connects God as a refuge with his word. In the Hebrew text “you” and “your word” stand side by side. In verses 137–44 the writer aligns the righteous God with a righteous word. According to verses 105, 130, 135, God and God’s word give light. The life-giving quality of the word and the Lord are proclaimed in verse 93. Just as God is to be feared, so is his word (vv. 63, 120).

The Word of God

The theme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT, accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and God himself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1–4), who took on flesh and blood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. The sovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in the vision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christ ultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains our lives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a just judgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt. 25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because John 10:1-21 is mentioned in the definition.

Atonement

The English word “atonement” comes from an Anglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”; thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In some ways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliation than our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness” as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity is achieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongs done. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achieved this “onement” between God and sinful humanity.

The need for atonement comes from the separation that has come about between God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there is the understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatures on account of their rebellion. Isaiah tells the people of Judah, “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (59:2). And Paul talks about how we were “God’s enemies” (Rom. 5:10). So atonement is the means provided by God to effect reconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’s holiness and justice.

Old Testament

In the OT, the sacrificial system was the means by which sins were atoned for, ritual purity was restored, iniquities were forgiven, and an amicable relationship between God and the offerer of the sacrifice was reestablished. Moses tells the Israelites that God has given them the blood of the sacrificial animals “to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life” (Lev. 17:11). In essence, this is the basic operating principle for atonement in the OT—the offering of the blood of a slaughtered animal in place of the life of the offerer. However, there have been significant scholarly debates regarding whether this accurately portrays the ancient Israelite understanding of atonement.

The meaning of “to atone.” First, there is disagreement over the precise meaning of the Hebrew word kapar (“to atone”). Among the more popular suggestions are these: to cover, to remove, to wipe out, to appease, to make amends, to redeem or ransom, to forgive, and to avert/divert. Of late, one very influential theory is that atonement has little or nothing to do with the individual offerer, but serves only to purify the tabernacle or temple and the furniture within from the impurities that attach to them on account of the community’s sin. This theory, though most probably correct in what it affirms, unnecessarily restricts the effects of atonement to the tabernacle and furniture. There are, to be sure, texts that specifically mention atonement being made for the altar (e.g., Exod. 29:36–37; Lev. 8:15). But the repeated affirmation for most of the texts in Leviticus and Numbers is that the atonement is made for the offerer (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26); atonement results in forgiveness of sin for the one bringing the offering. As far as the precise meaning of kapar is concerned, it may be that some of the suggested meanings overlap and that a particular concept is more prevalent in some passages, and another one in others.

There has also been debate over the significance of the offerer laying a hand on the head of the sacrificial animal (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 3:2). This has traditionally been understood as an identification of the offerer with the sacrifice and a transference of the offerer’s sins to the sacrifice. Recently this has been disputed and the argument made instead that it only signifies that the animal does indeed belong to the offerer, who therefore has the right to offer it. But again, this is unduly restrictive; it should rather be seen as complementary to what has traditionally been understood by this gesture. Indeed, in the rite for the Day of Atonement, when the priest lays his hands on the one goat, confesses Israel’s sin and wickedness, and in doing so is said to be putting them on the goat’s head (Lev. 16:21), this would seem to affirm the correctness of the traditional understanding. The sacrifice is thus best seen as substitutionary: it takes the place of the offerer; it dies in his stead.

The relationship between God and the offerer. Second, granted that the word kapar has to do with the forgiveness of sins, the question arises as to the exact effect that it has on the relationship between God and the offerer. The question here is whether the effect is expiation or propitiation. Does the offering expiate the sin—wipe it out, erase it, remove it? Or does it propitiate the one to whom the sacrifice is offered? That is, does it appease and placate God, so that the threat of God’s wrath is removed? In one respect, the distinction seems artificial; it seems logical that expiation naturally results in propitiation. On the other hand, the modern-day tendency to deny that God could possibly be a God of wrath makes the question relevant. In any case, there are certainly, in both religious and nonreligious contexts, passages where something like “appease” or “pacify” appears to be a proper rendering of kapar (Gen. 32:20; Exod. 32:30; Num. 16:46–47; 25:1–13; 1 Sam. 3:14). The effect of atonement is that sins are removed and forgiven, and God is appeased.

In conjunction with this last point, it is also important to note that there are a number of places where it is said that God does the kapar, that God is the one who makes atonement. Deuteronomy 21:8 calls upon God, literally, to “atone [NIV: “accept this atonement”] for your people, Israel.” In Deut. 32:43 God will “make atonement for his land and people.” Psalm 65:3 (ESV) states that God “atone[s] for our transgressions” (ESV). Hezekiah prays in 2 Chron. 30:18, “May the Lord, who is good, pardon [atone for] everyone.” In Ps. 78:38 (ESV), God is said to have “atoned” for Israel’s iniquity. Psalm 79:9 (ESV) asks God to “atone for our sins for your name’s sake.” In Isa. 43:3 kapar is translated as “ransom,” and God says to Israel that he gave “Egypt for your ransom.” In Ezek. 16:63 God declares that he will “make atonement” for all the sins that Israel has committed. It may be that in most of these passages “atone” is to be understood as a synonym of “forgive.” However, as many commentators have noted, in at least some of these passages, the thought is that God is either being called upon to take or is taking upon himself the role of high priest, atoning for the sins of the people. It is important to remember God’s declaration in Lev. 17:11 that he has given to the Israelites the blood of the sacrificial animals to make atonement for their sins. Atonement, no matter how it is conceived of or carried out, is a gift that God graciously grants to his covenant people.

That leads to a consideration of one particularly relevant passage, Isa. 52:13–53:12. In this text a figure referred to as “my [the Lord’s] servant” (52:13) is described as one who “took up our pain and bore our suffering” (53:4). He was “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities” (53:5). “The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (53:6). And then we are told, “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,” and that “the Lord makes his life an offering for sin [NASB: “guilt offering”]” (53:10). There are many issues with regard to the proper interpretation of this “Servant Song” (as it is often called), one of them being whether the term translated “guilt offering” should really be thought of along the lines of the guilt offering described in the book of Leviticus (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10). But if the traditional Christian understanding of this passage is correct, we have here a picture of God himself assuming the role of priest and atoning for the sins of his people by placing their iniquities and sins on his servant, a figure regarded by Jesus and the apostles in the NT to be God’s very own son, Christ Jesus.

New Testament

The relationship between the Testaments. When we come to the NT, four very important initial points should be made.

First, God’s wrath against sin and sinners is just as much a NT consideration as an OT one. God still considers those who are sinful and unrighteous to be his “enemies” (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21). Wrath and punishment await those who do not confess Jesus Christ as Lord (John 3:36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:3). Atonement is the means of averting this wrath.

Second, salvation is promised to those who come to God by faith in Christ Jesus, but there is still the problem of how God can, at the same time, be “just” himself and yet also be the one who “justifies” sinners and declares them righteous (Rom. 3:26). God will not simply declare sinners to be justified unless his own justness is also upheld. Atonement is the way by which God is both just and justifier.

Third, as we saw in the OT that, ultimately, God is the one who atones, so also in the NT God is the one who provides the means for atonement. It is by his gracious initiative that atonement becomes possible. If Jesus’ death is the means by which atonement is achieved, it is God himself who “presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement” (Rom. 3:25). It was God himself who “so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). God himself “sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10). God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32). Additionally, Christ himself was not an unwilling victim; he was actively involved in the accomplishing of atonement by his death (Luke 9:31; John 10:15–18; Heb. 9:14).

Fourth, the atoning sacrifice of the Son was necessary because, ultimately, the OT sacrifices could not really have provided the necessary atonement: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).

Portrayals of Christ’s work of atonement. It has become common of late to refer to the different “images” or “metaphors” of atonement that appear in the NT. This is understandable on one level, but on another level there is something misleading about it. So, for example, when the NT authors speak of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, it is not at all clear that they intend for the reader to take this as imagery. Rather, Christ really is a sacrifice, offered by God the Father, to take away sins, and to bear in his own body the penalty that should have been placed on the sinner. Christ’s sacrifice has an organic connection to the OT sacrificial system, as the “full, final sacrifice.” The author of Hebrews would not have considered this to be imagery. In fact, a better case could be made that, from his perspective, Christ was the real sacrifice, and all the instances of sacrifice in the OT were the imagery (Heb. 10:1). So as we look at the different portrayals of Christ in his work of atonement in the NT, some of these may best be categorized as imagery or metaphor, while others perhaps are better described as a “facet” of, or a “window” on, the atonement. It should also be noted that the individual portrayals do not exclude the others, and in some cases they overlap.

• Ransom. Some passages in the NT speak of Christ’s death as a ransom paid to set us free (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:15). The same Greek word translated “ransom” in these passages is rendered as “redeem” or “redemption” in other passages (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Other forms of the same word are also translated “redeem” or “redemption” in Gal. 3:13–14; 4:5; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:18–19; Rev. 14:3. A near synonym of these words is used in Rev. 5:9; 14:4, referring to how Christ “purchased” people by his blood. In most of these cases the picture is that of slaves who have been ransomed, redeemed, or purchased from the slave market. Sometimes this is referred to as an “economic” view of atonement, though this label seems a bit crass, for the purchase is not of a commodity but of human lives at the expense of Christ’s own life and blood. To ask the question as to whom the ransom was paid is probably taking the picture too far. But those who are ransomed are redeemed from a life of slavery to sin and to the law.

• Curse bearer. In Gal. 3:13–14, noted above, there is also the picture of Christ as one who bore the curse of the law in our place. The language is especially striking because rather than saying that Christ bore the curse, Paul says that Christ became “a curse.” This is an especially forceful way of saying that Christ fully took into his own person the curse that was meant for us.

• Penalty bearer. Closely related to “curse bearer,” this portrayal depicts Christ as one who has borne the legal consequences of our sins, consequences that we should have suffered; rather, because Christ has borne the penalty, we are now declared to be righteous and no longer subject to condemnation. This idea stands behind much of the argumentation that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, and it also intersects with the other portrayals. Passages representative of this picture are Rom. 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:8–21; 8:32–34; Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 2:15. It is also what should be understood by Peter’s description of Christ’s death as “the just for the unjust” in 1 Pet. 3:18 (NASB, NET), as well as in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul states that Christ has become “sin for us” so that we might become the “righteousness of God.”

• Propitiation. There are four passages where the NIV uses “atonement” or “atoning” in the translation to reflect either the Greek verb hilaskomai or related nouns hilastērion or hilasmos. This is the word group that the LXX regularly uses to translate the Hebrew verb kapar and related nouns. There has been much debate about the precise meaning of the word in these four NT texts, in particular, as to whether it means to “expiate” (“remove guilt”) or to “propitiate” (“appease” or “avert wrath”). The better arguments have been advanced in favor of “propitiate”; at the very least, propitiation is implied in expiation. The wrath that we should have suffered on account of our sins has been suffered by Jesus Christ instead. Although the specific word is not used, this is the understanding as well in those passages where it is said either that Christ died “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), “gave himself for our sins” (Gal. 1:4), “bore our sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), or that his blood was poured out “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28; cf. Eph. 1:7).

• Passover. In 1 Cor. 5:7 Paul states that “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” Although the Passover has not traditionally been thought of as a sacrifice for sin (though many scholars would argue that it was), at the very least we should recognize a substitutionary concept at play in Paul’s use of the Passover idea. A lamb died so that the firstborn would not. The Gospel of John seems to have the same understanding. Early in the Gospel, Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). And then in his account of Jesus’ passion, John narrates that his crucifixion was precisely at the same time as the slaying of the Passover lambs (John 19:14).

• Sacrifice. This theme has already been touched on in the other portraits above, but it is important to recognize the significance of this concept in the NT and especially in the book of Hebrews. There, Christ is portrayed as both sacrifice and the high priest who offers the sacrifice (2:17; 7:27; 9:11–28; 10:10–21; 12:24). He came, not as some have argued, to show the uselessness of the sacrificial system, but rather to be the “full, final sacrifice” within that system, “that he might make atonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).

Of course, it is not just the death of Christ that secures our redemption. His entire earthly life, as well as his resurrection and heavenly intercessory work, must also be recognized. But with regard to the work of atonement per se, Christ’s earthly life, his sinless “active obedience,” is what qualifies him to be the perfect sacrifice. His resurrection is the demonstration of God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice (he “was raised to life for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]). But it was particularly his death that provided atonement for our sins.

Bible Texts

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Greek texts. Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more than five thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a few verses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have been classified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most important manuscripts are listed below.

The earliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eight of these manuscripts have been identified, and they are represented by a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest of these papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18 and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions of the NT text, the most important papyri are found in the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from the Chester Beatty collection, are from the third century and contain large sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles, Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva are four very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preserves most of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century and contains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which are preserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss. 33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portions of Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally, P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Luke and John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among the remaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourth century or before.

The second category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually were written on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries. About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up to complete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncials originally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number of manuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employed whereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning with zero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known by their letter. Among the most important uncials are the following five manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à) dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains the entire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the early Christian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designated as A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions of Matthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement. Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus (designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It contains almost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantial portions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’s library for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial is Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greek and Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few verses from 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus (designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century and contains virtually all of the four Gospels.

The third category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date from the ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800 manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero. Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex 33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliable witnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or the Alexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy for having the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21 instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, the lectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscripts in the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NT presents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.

Versions. With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire, the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. These versions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NT and for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the text was rendered into a new language. Among the most important early versions of the NT are the following.

As Latin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire, there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliest translation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably in the late second century, though the oldest manuscript (Codex Vercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation of Latin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and in AD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a new translation known as the Vulgate.

Another family of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late second century the four Gospels were translated into a version known as the Old Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that are probably fifth century. The translation that became the standard Syriac text is the Peshitta, which was produced in the early fifth century. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, or Revelation because these were not considered canonical among the Syriac churches.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Hebrew texts. The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions and translations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named after the Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and added vocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. The most important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninth century to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the Aleppo Codex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT except for most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD 925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and the Cairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua through Kings and also the Prophets.

Although these manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, their reliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSS beginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts of biblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal and pseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books are represented among the scrolls that were found except Esther and Nehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at the end of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscripts are, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the striking characteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity of text types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close to the Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar to the much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT).

Another Hebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is the text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT in some respects but also has differences that reflect theological interests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are from the twelfth century.

Versions. Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT was translated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint (designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of the OT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, the LXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or early first century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: the Proto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed to revise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text and derives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrew word gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In the second century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recension back toward the MT.

Another important early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which are Aramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensive elaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism are Targum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which is quite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometime before the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literal to somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuch include Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are also various unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT, except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partly in Aramaic).

Besides the Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other important versions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth century AD, the Peshitta of the OT was produced, though there is evidence that there were earlier Syriac translations of some books already circulating. Also important is a group of Latin translations known collectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometime during the second century AD and were primarily made from already existing Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT, a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.

Bible Versions

Bible Texts and Versions The NT and the OT have considerably different but partially overlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin with a survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.

Other important versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.

Old Testament

Book of Ezekiel

The book of Ezekiel is widely recognized as one of the most idiosyncratic of the OT prophetic books. Some rabbis prohibited anyone under the age of thirty from reading portions of the book (i.e., the visions of God’s glory in chapters 1 and 10 might lead to dangerous speculations about the mystery of God).

Authorship and Date

Up until the beginning of the twentieth century, most scholars viewed the unparalleled extensive dating in the book (1:1–2; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1, 17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1, 17; 33:21; 40:1), along with the symmetry achieved by deliberate thematic repetition (i.e., the “watchman” passages in 3:16–21; 33:1–9; Ezekiel’s message of judgment/hope addressed to the mountains of Israel respectively in chaps. 6; 36) as indisputable proof that the book was the product of a single author. Even during the first one hundred years or so of historical-critical dominance in OT research, historical-critical investigations tended to confirm the traditional views of the unity, authenticity, and date of the book of Ezekiel, although the opinions of the majority of scholars began to shift early in the twentieth century.

For much of the first half of the twentieth century, issues of authorship, dating, and provenance of the prophet’s ministry dominated critical research on the book of Ezekiel. The book’s peculiarities lent themselves to various suggestions regarding the place of Ezekiel’s ministry. If, as 1:1–3 records, Ezekiel was called to prophetic ministry among the exilic community in Babylon, how does one explain Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of particular events in Jerusalem, such as the death of Pelatiah (11:13) and the various forms of idolatry taking place in and around the temple complex in chapters 8–11? Furthermore, what is one to make of Ezekiel’s words to those who remained behind in Jerusalem (5:8–17; 11:5–12; 33:23–29)?

Many of those who sought to defend a straightforward understanding of the book’s own claims looked to mysticism or psychology to explain Ezekiel’s visionary involvement in events occurring some seven hundred miles away. Explanations for the apparent idiosyncrasies of his ministry—including extremely violent and graphic language, his extended period of “muteness,” various striking sign-acts, and the extended length and emotional intensity of his visionary experiences—tended to bleed into the discussion of how to understand his visionary experience of being transported to remote locations. Earlier solutions ranged from noting the similarities between Ezekiel’s experiences and those of the mystics to characterizing Ezekiel as having a “complex personality” and as one whose life was more attuned to the realities of the supernatural world.

Geographical solutions to account for Ezekiel’s apparent knowledge of events in Jerusalem include two suggestions. The first is that Ezekiel ministered only in Jerusalem. His preaching forms the core of chapters 1–39, and a later exilic redactor updated these chapters to address the concerns of an exilic audience and also added chapters 40–48. The second suggestion is that Ezekiel ministered in Jerusalem from 593 BC until the fall of Jerusalem, at which time he was taken into captivity in Babylon, where he continued his ministry among the exiles. The appeal of a dual-ministry approach is that it accounts for the double geographical focus of Ezekiel without resorting to ecstatic or supernatural flight from one city to the other or positing extensive secondhand editing of the book.

On the other hand, there is evidence from other biblical materials that ecstatic or visionary experiences of this sort were part of the prophetic tradition. Many of Ezekiel’s apparent idiosyncrasies actually resemble characteristics of the preclassical prophets. Viewing Ezekiel’s ministry as part of an accepted cultural tradition provides a more persuasive explanation for the text as it stands. For example, the evidence of continued contacts between the Jerusalem and exilic communities (Jer. 29; Ezek. 33:21) suffices to explain whatever knowledge Ezekiel possessed of events in Jerusalem. The manner of their presentation in his visions is dictated by the cultural standards and expectations of a prophet operating under the influence of the “hand of Yahweh” and by the rhetorical goals of his preaching.

It is entirely plausible to suggest that the author of Ezekiel was an Israelite who was a rough contemporary of the tragic events surrounding the dismantling of the Judahite monarchy by the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

Historical Background

The book of Ezekiel itself yields pertinent information about Ezekiel’s world, which, when supplemented with other biblical texts (2 Kings, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Habakkuk), enables us to reconstruct a working picture of the social, historical, and theological milieu in which Ezekiel lived and ministered.

In 701 BC the kingdom of Judah escaped annihilation by the Assyrians, as had befallen the northern kingdom in 722 BC, due in large part to the ministry of Isaiah and the faith of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:1–20:21; Isa. 36–37), albeit at a crippling financial expense in the form of heavy tribute to Assyria. After Hezekiah’s death in 698 BC, his son Manasseh reversed his father’s religious reforms, which meant disaster spiritually (2 Kings 21:1–18; 2 Chron. 33:1–11) and survival politically. Judah continued to exist for most of the seventh century BC as a vassal kingdom under Assyrian domination. The spiritual decline of Judah was briefly challenged during the reign of Josiah, who ruled in the years 640–609 BC. However, Jeremiah’s strong invectives against empty religious formalism and social irresponsibility during much of Josiah’s reign suggest that Josiah’s attempts at religious reforms were only nominally successful and did not penetrate to the populace at large.

While Josiah was seeking to institute his reforms, power in the international scene was shifting. After the death of Ashurbanipal, the last great Assyrian ruler, the Assyrian Empire began to wane. The Neo-Babylonian Empire, founded by Nabopolassar (626 BC), dealt Assyria its final blow with the conquest of Nineveh (612 BC), followed by the destruction of Harran a few years later. This, coupled with the untimely death of Josiah in battle against the Egyptians at Megiddo (609 BC), spelled disaster for Judah (2 Kings 23:29–30; 2 Chron. 35:20–24). Nebuchadnezzar assumed leadership of Babylon after the death of his father (605 BC). Later that same year, Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egyptian forces at Carchemish and also ordered the deportation of some of the educated young Jewish men to Babylon (Dan. 1:1–4). This was followed by a second deportation in 597 BC, which included King Jehoiachin, Ezekiel, and about ten thousand Jews (2 Kings 24:14). Zedekiah was placed on the Judean throne as a puppet king. His rebellion against Babylon (588 BC) led to Nebuchadnezzar’s one-and-a-half-year siege of Jerusalem before its final demise in 586 BC.

The political crisis of 597–586 BC led to a crisis of faith. The promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (2 Sam. 7:7–16; Ps. 89:3–4, 35–37) and Yahweh’s vow to set up his abode forever in the temple at Jerusalem (Pss. 68:16; 132:13–14) seemed to be failing. At the beginning of Ezekiel’s ministry, the Davidic promise was already under a cloud: Jehoiachin, the rightful heir of the line of David, had been taken in captivity to Babylon, and in his place sat the puppet king Zedekiah. In addition, the land of Canaan had played a significant role in shaping the Israelites’ understanding of themselves as Yahweh’s chosen people (Gen. 12:1–3; Deut. 4:37–38; 7:1–11). Because true worship of God was so closely aligned with the Israelites’ inheritance of the land (Deut. 12), to be outside the land immediately raised grave concern about their status before God (1 Sam. 26:19). To be outside the promised land would lead in a few short years to a questioning of whether true worship was even possible any longer (Ps. 137:4). Throughout this period, Ezekiel (and Jeremiah) consistently portrayed Nebuchadnezzar as an unwitting pagan king commissioned by Yahweh to execute the covenant curses on the recalcitrant southern kingdom.

Far from recognizing these events as such, many Israelites in the rebellion party, supported by rebellion prophets, asserted their claim to divine favor and denied the validity of prophetic indictments. They supported their claims with appeals to the miraculous deliverance from the formidable Assyrian army (701 BC), selective use of Scripture’s focus on the inviolability of Jerusalem and the temple, the unconditional promises of an eternal Davidic kingdom (see above), and predictions by rebellion prophets of a quick return for the exiles (Jer. 28; 29:15–32; Ezek. 13).

From Ezekiel’s perspective, the people of Judah were making a liar out of Yahweh. Yahweh had always demanded their exclusive worship. In light of their recent history of idolatry, the only appropriate response was to execute judgment on them (Ezek. 20:4–44). By denying this, the only explanation left to the rebellion party for the destruction of Jerusalem and exile was that a mighty and wicked kingdom that they intensely hated (Ps. 137:4) had bested Yahweh.

From this historical survey one may distill the overall situation faced by Ezekiel into a set of opinions probably shared by the majority of Ezekiel’s fellow exiles. First, there was a widespread belief that it was proper to worship other deities in addition to Yahweh. Also, it was generally believed that the people of Judah were in good standing with Yahweh and were objects of his favor, and that he would shortly bring them deliverance. These beliefs combined to eliminate serious consideration of the possibility that destruction of the kingdom and exile were Yahweh’s intention. Consequently, once the kingdom was destroyed and exile had become a reality, Yahweh’s power and/or character became suspect in the minds of many. Furthermore, the perceived link between the land and the presence and blessing of Yahweh cast the exilic experience in an extremely negative light. For those gripped by these convictions, exile raised the specter of hopelessness. The sense of hopelessness was intensified by its conjunction with the belief that destruction of the kingdom and exile were undeserved. There was no way to integrate the outcome of the Babylonian crisis with their previously held beliefs about Yahweh and his purposes for Israel.

Literary Considerations

Structure and outline. There are several frameworks that can help the reader understand the “inner logic” of the book.

Tripartite structure. In chapters 1–24 the theme of God’s impending judgment on the nation of Israel for violation of the covenant laws is emphatically repeated in both word and sign-act. Chapters 25–32 serve a Janus (double) function, connecting with chapters 1–24 by continuing the theme of God’s judgment, now directed toward the foreign nations. The pronouncements of coming judgment in these chapters anticipate the last part of the book, with the message of hope for Israel that dominates chapters 33–48. The emphasis on divine judgment in the first half of the book is not a de facto statement that God is finished with Israel; rather, it is recognition that only by means of judgment (both of Israel and their neighbors) is future restoration and reconciliation possible. Many recognize a further subdivision in the third section, with chapters 33–39 focusing on the renewal of the nation and chapters 40–48 dealing with Ezekiel’s temple vision.

This yields the following outline:

I. God’s Judgment on Israel (1–24)

II. God’s Judgment on the Foreign Nations (25–32)

III. Hope for Israel (33–48)

A. Renewal of the nation (33–39)

B. Ezekiel’s temple vision (40–48)

Visions. Visions open and close the book (chaps. 1–3; 40–48), with two additional visions in between: temple idolatry and the incremental departure of God’s glory as judgment is executed (chaps. 8–11), and the valley of dry bones (37:1–14).

The movement of God’s glory. Ezekiel’s sustained concern for the temple as the place where God’s glory dwells provides a unifying structure to the book as Ezekiel chronicles God’s glory coming to Babylon in his ominous inaugural vision (chaps. 1–3), the incremental departure of God’s glory from the temple and the city (chaps. 8–11), and the return of God’s glory in the vision of the new temple (chaps. 40–48).

Genre. The book of Ezekiel is considered by many to be a literary masterpiece composed of various genres, including extended visionary narrative (1–3; 8–11; 37:1–14; 40–48), allegory (16; 23), poetry (19; 26–28), parable (17; 24:3), and popular sayings (8:12; 9:9; 11:3, 15; 12:22, 27; 18:2; 33:10, 17, 20, 24, 30; 37:11). Other prophets quoted popular sayings (Isa. 40:27; Jer. 31:29; Amos 5:14; Hag. 1:2; Mal. 1:2, 6–7, 12–13), but the quotations are far more frequent in Ezekiel and are couched in uniquely theocentric language. In each case it is God who informs Ezekiel what the people are saying. Ezekiel uses popular sayings of the people to establish their hostility toward God and to vindicate God by demonstrating his covenant faithfulness. The unparalleled frequency of Ezekiel’s use of popular sayings in his oracles against the Israelites and the patently theocentric garb in which his counterreplies are clothed serve to anchor both the judgment and the hope of restoration in God alone. Ezekiel’s quotations serve as a foil for a frontal attack on the entire religious enterprise of his contemporaries in Jerusalem and Babylon. By citing these popular sayings and refuting them, Ezekiel skillfully reveals both the necessity and purpose of the exilic crisis. He turns the sayings of the people against them, exposing the depths of their opposition to God and thus furthering the purpose of vindicating God.

Theological Message

The sovereignty of God. The book emphasizes God’s sovereignty over all as Ezekiel challenged the false theology of his fellow Jewish exiles, which held that Yahweh, bound by covenantal oath, could not destroy Jerusalem. The formulaic expression (with variations) “After X occurs, then you/they will know that I am the Lord/I have spoken” occurs over sixty-five times in the book to emphasize God’s intervention in human events, including the exile and restoration (e.g., 7:27; 13:23; 29:16), to uphold the covenant and establish his kingdom.

The holiness of God. Israel’s sins had obscured God’s holiness in the sight of their neighbors (20:9). God’s holiness required both punishment of Israel’s sins and the continuation of his covenantal relationship with his people. God’s purging judgment and restoration would be a fulfillment of his covenantal obligations and would display his holiness (20:40–44; 28:25; 36:16–32).

Hope in the midst of judgment. God’s covenantal faithfulness would include restoration after judgment (chaps. 33–39). The final temple vision (chaps. 40–48) gives a picture of the restoration using typological images and cultural idioms with which the people were familiar.

New Testament Connections

There are approximately sixty-five quotations and allusions to the book of Ezekiel in the NT. Echoes of Ezekiel are prevalent in John’s Gospel (John 10:1–30 [Ezek. 34]; John 15:1–8 [Ezek. 15]) and the book of Revelation (Rev. 4:6–9 [Ezek. 1]; Rev. 20–22 [Ezek. 40–48]).

Free Will

Some Bible translations use the term “free will” to describe an act that is voluntary or of one’s own accord (e.g., John 10:18 GW, MSG; 2 Cor. 8:3 NLT, RSV; Philem. 14 NASB, RSV). Freewill offerings are so called because they were offered voluntarily rather than out of necessity. In a theological sense, “free will” refers to the human ability to make choices apart from the predetermination or compulsion of God’s will. It therefore plays an important role in discussions about predestination and divine sovereignty. In theological and philosophical debates, free will is often contrasted with election or fate. At stake in such discussions are whether humans are free to act apart from, or even contrary to, God’s will; whether God and his will are affected by human choices; and what responsibility humans bear for the consequences of their decisions. See also Election; Freedom; Freewill Offering; Openness Theology.

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.

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

Occupation

An occupation or profession is the usual work or business in which a person engages for the sake of earning a living. In biblical times, family or social standing most often determined occupation. This was particularly true for occupations tied to land, such as planting crops and raising animals, since land in ancient Israel was passed down within the tribe, normally from fathers to sons (Josh. 14:9; Ezek. 46:18). Sometimes daughters also received a share in the family inheritance (Josh. 17:6). Most people gained their livelihood from their family’s land, and those who did not have land hired themselves out to work for wages (Deut. 24:14). A son normally learned his trade from his father (Gen. 47:3; 2 Kings 4:18; Matt. 4:21) and continued in that occupation unless called into God’s service (1 Kings 19:19–21; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 4:22).

Cicero, writing around the time of the NT, considered occupations such as tax collector, laborer, and fisherman to be vulgar. Conversely, professions such as teacher, doctor, and wholesale trader were more honorable, with landowner being the most respectable and profitable profession (Off. 1.42).

Agriculture and Farming

Farming is the earliest recorded occupation in the Bible, as the first man was called to work and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15). Even after the exile from Eden because of sin, Adam worked the ground for food, as did Cain, his firstborn son (Gen. 3:17–18; 4:2). The opening chapters of the Bible establish a fundamental link between “man” (’adam) and the “ground” (’adamah). After the flood, Noah established himself as a “man of the soil” (’ish ha’adamah) by planting a vineyard (Gen. 9:20). King Uzziah “loved the soil” (’oheb ’adamah) and so employed people to work in his fields and vineyards (2 Chron. 26:10).

God demonstrated his covenant commitment to Isaac by blessing him with an incredible harvest (Gen. 26:12), and he promised to prosper Israel’s farms if the people obeyed him (Deut. 28:4) and to curse the fruit of their ground if they disobeyed (Deut. 28:18). The OT ideal was for everyone to live “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” (1 Kings 4:25; Mic. 4:4). According to Prov. 28:19, the diligent farmer would have abundant food.

Jesus’ parables frequently employed agricultural imagery that would have been readily understandable in first-century Palestine, where many people were farmers (cf. Mark 4:1–9; 12:1–11) and some owned land (Acts 4:34). The people living around Jerusalem at this time engaged in agriculture, soil cultivation, and cattle raising (Let. Aris. 107–112).

Herding and Hunting

Herding animals is the second-oldest occupation recorded in Scripture (after farming), and raising flocks and herds continued to be one of the most common and important professions throughout biblical times. Abel is the first “keeper of sheep” in the Bible (Gen. 4:2 NRSV). Several generations later, Jabal pioneered the nomadic herding lifestyle (Gen. 4:20). The patriarchs were shepherds (Gen. 47:3), as were Moses (Exod. 3:1), David (1 Sam. 17:34), and many others in the OT. Josephus acknowledged that “feeding of sheep was the employment of our forefathers in the most ancient ages” (Ag. Ap. 1.91). While men typically worked as shepherds and herdsmen, the occupation was also open to women, such as Rachel, whose fathers owned sheep (Gen. 29:9). Shepherds were present at Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8–20), and Jesus’ teaching suggests that shepherding was a common occupation in Palestine (cf. Matt. 18:12; John 10:1–30).

Many people in biblical times hunted, either for food, sport, or protection. The first recorded hunter is Nimrod, “a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Gen. 10:9). Ishmael was “an expert with the bow” (Gen. 21:20 NRSV), while Esau was “a skillful hunter, a man of the open country” who brought back wild game for food (25:27–28). The name of Pokereth-Hazzebaim, included in the genealogy of Solomon’s servants in Ezra 2:57, reflects his occupation as a “gazelle catcher” (cf. 1 Kings 4:23).

Builders and Craftsmen

Cain was the first person in the Bible to build a city (Gen. 4:17), and his descendant Tubal-Cain was the first metalworker (4:22). Nimrod built a number of cities (10:11–12), and the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom was Babel (10:10), where the people gathered together to build a city with brick (11:3). Builders in Mesopotamia used baked brick and asphalt, while Israelite builders usually preferred the more readily available stone and mortar. After Joseph’s death, Israel was conscripted into forced labor in Egypt, which involved building cities of brick and mortar (Exod. 1:11).

The role of craftsmen in the construction of the tabernacle was particularly significant. Bezalel and Oholiab were “skilled workers and designers” empowered by God for work on the tabernacle (Exod. 35:35). They engaged in “all kinds of crafts,” including artistic metalworking, masonry, carpentry, and weaving (Exod. 31:4–5; 38:23).

Kings in Israel often commissioned important building projects (1 Kings 12:25; 15:22; 16:24; 2 Chron. 26:9; Josephus, J.W. 1.401–2). Carpenters and stonemasons worked on David’s palace (2 Sam. 5:11). Solomon conscripted laborers to build the temple and also employed carriers, stonecutters, craftsmen, and foremen to supervise the work (1 Kings 5:13–18). After the Babylonian exile, many Israelites were involved in rebuilding the temple and the wall of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed (Ezra 3:8; Neh. 4:16–18). These projects, directed by Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, utilized masons, carpenters, and other workers (Ezra 3:7).

Jesus is referred to as a tektōn (Mark 6:3) and as the son of a tektōn (Matt. 13:55), with tektōn usually translated “carpenter” by English versions. However, recent scholarship has demonstrated that Jesus was likely a builder, not a carpenter in the modern sense of the term. In the LXX, the word tektōn typically translates a Hebrew word, kharash, used broadly to refer to craftsmen working with stone, wood, or metal.

Musicians

The first musician recorded in Scripture is Jubal, “the father of all who play the stringed instruments and pipes” (Gen. 4:21). Musicians performed a variety of roles in ancient society, as they do today. Singers and instrumentalists were employed to celebrate festive occasions, often to provide accompaniment for dancing (Gen. 31:27; Luke 15:25), to soothe the sick or distressed (1 Sam. 16:16), and to express lamentation (Job 30:31).

Musicians played an important role in leading God’s people in worship. The “director of music” is mentioned in the headings of fifty-five psalms and Hab. 3:19. The most famous musician in Scripture is David, “the singer of Israel’s psalms” (2 Sam. 23:1 GW), who played the harp (1 Sam. 16:18) and wrote or inspired at least seventy-three canonical psalms. Solomon was also a notable songwriter and lover of music (1 Kings 4:32). David appointed many Levites as singers and musicians to lead Israel in worship (1 Chron. 15:16; 23:5). The musicians played lyres, harps, cymbals, and trumpets (2 Chron. 5:12).

Government, Politics, and Military

Before the monarchy, there were no formal government offices. Under Moses, a group of seventy elders in Israel served as leaders and officials, and these men were to carry out Moses’ decrees and judge the people on most matters (Exod. 18:20–22; Num. 11:16). After Joshua’s death, God raised up judges to rescue Israel from foreign enemies and lead the people (Judg. 2:16) until the time of Samuel, when Saul was made king (1 Sam. 11:15).

Kings in Israel employed various officials. In 2 Sam. 8:16–18, Joab is listed first among David’s officials, which suggests that the military commander was second in authority after the king. Under Solomon, the leader of the army is called “commander in chief” (1 Kings 4:4). The royal cabinet included a number of key advisers, including the recorder, the secretary, and the “confidant” of the king (cf. 2 Sam. 16:16). The OT does not specify the precise roles of these officials. The recorder was among the highest governmental positions and served as a royal counselor. In Hebrew, mazkir (“recorder”) is a cognate noun to the verb zkr (“to remember”), which suggests that this official may have managed and preserved public records (2 Kings 18:18; Isa. 36:22). The main task of the king’s secretary or scribe (sop̱er) was to write down (sapar) official state documents (2 Sam. 8:17), and he advised the king and also provided financial oversight (2 Kings 12:10). Recorders and secretaries apparently were well educated and multilingual, as was the palace administrator (2 Kings 18:18, 26). Solomon’s officials included supervisors of the palace and the forced labor, as well as governors who supplied provisions for the king’s household (1 Kings 4:6–7). The OT mentions cupbearers in Israel’s government and in other administrations (Gen. 40:1; 1 Kings 10:5; Neh. 1:11). The cupbearer served as the royal wine taster; he protected the king from being poisoned and had direct access to the monarch.

In the Roman Empire, the emperor was absolute ruler (1 Pet. 2:17), with the senate next in authority. Proconsuls held judicial and military authority over larger provinces (Acts 18:12), prefects (governors) administered smaller provinces (Matt. 27:2), with tetrarchs over one-fourth of a province (Luke 3:1).

Christians in NT times engaged in civil service. Erastus was a financial officer in Corinth (Rom. 16:23), and he may be the same Erastus commemorated in an inscription from this period who held the office of aedile. The proconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7); Manaen, a close friend of Herod Antipas (Acts 13:1); and members of Caesar’s household (Phil. 4:22) were also Christian public leaders.

Trade and Economics

From earliest times, people have exchanged goods and property. When Abraham purchased Ephron’s field, his silver was measured “according to the weight current among the merchants” (Gen. 23:16), which suggests that a recognized system of public trading was in place during the time of the patriarchs. Traders of commodities such as spices traveled along caravan routes between southern Arabia and Egypt, and these traders often acquired slaves along the way (Gen. 37:28). Solomon employed royal merchants to buy and sell goods (1 Kings 10:28).

In the first century, Jews were engaged broadly in economic life as landowners, artisans, merchants, traders, bankers, and slaves. Several of Jesus’ disciples were fishermen (Matt. 4:18). Luke was a physician, a well-educated and respectable professional (Col. 4:14). Lydia was a dealer in purple cloth (Acts 16:14). Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla worked as tentmakers (Acts 18:3). In the Roman Empire, commerce and pagan religion often intermingled. Merchants often formed trade guilds, where membership sometimes required religious and moral compromise. In Ephesus, silversmiths and craftsmen in related trades turned significant profit through their connections with the local Artemis cult (Acts 19:24–27).

Jesus frequently spent time with tax collectors, such as Levi (also called “Matthew”) (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:14). Tax collectors were a despised group because often they became wealthy by taking advantage of the Roman taxation system, which allowed them to charge commission on taxes collected (Luke 19:2, 8). Jesus’ parable of the talents references bankers who offered interest on deposits collected (Matt. 25:27), and Rev. 3:17–18 alludes to the fact that Laodicea was a financial center with a significant banking system.

Servants and Slaves

In the OT, ’ebed most often designates a slave or servant, whose occupation involves work (’abad ) as a subordinate. Some servants held very important positions in their master’s household (Gen. 24:2), while many others toiled in hard labor (Job 7:2). Israelites were not to enslave their kinfolk, but they could take slaves from other nations. Fellow Israelites who became poor could serve as hired workers, but they were to be released along with their children at the Jubilee because God had brought Israel out from Egyptian slavery and they belonged to God as his servants (Lev. 25:39–46).

Slaves in the Roman world were property like goods or cattle, possessed by another (Dio Chrysostom, 2 Serv. lib. 24). Unlike modern slavery practices, race played no factor in the Roman institution of slavery. Slaves were kidnapped and sold in NT times (1 Tim. 1:10; Rev. 18:13), but the majority of slaves were so by birth. The most prominent slave in the NT is Onesimus, for whom Paul intercedes with his master, Philemon (Philem. 10, 16). Believing slaves were to obey their earthly masters “as slaves of Christ” (Eph. 6:5–6), but the NT stressed the equality of slave and free in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Paul called himself a “servant [doulos] of Christ Jesus” (Rom. 1:1).

Religious Service

Most Israelites engaged in professional religious service were Levites (Num. 3:12), including Moses, Aaron, and the priests in Aaron’s line (Exod. 6:19–20; 35:19). The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people (Heb. 5:1). Under the priests’ direction, the Levites were charged with caring for the tabernacle and its furnishings (Num. 1:49; 1 Chron. 23:32) and carrying the ark of the covenant (1 Chron. 15:2). They were set apart to serve in God’s presence (Deut. 18:7) and to lead the people in worship (2 Chron. 5:12). Further, priests often played an important advisory role to Israel’s kings (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Kings 4:5; 2 Kings 12:2).

In Israel, people went to seers and prophets to inquire of God (1 Sam. 9:9), for they received and communicated God’s word (2 Sam. 24:11; Jer. 37:6). Sometimes individuals are mentioned as prophets, and other times the prophets are discussed as an organized group (1 Sam. 19:20; 1 Kings 22:6).

The NT references a number of ministerial offices (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:1–12). Not all ministers were paid, though teachers and preachers had a right to “receive their living from the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14–15; cf. 1 Tim. 5:17). Apostles were those sent out by Jesus as his representatives. The term apostolos refers particularly to the twelve apostles who were with Jesus during his earthly ministry and who were witnesses of his resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). Paul referred to himself as an apostle (Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1), and he calls Epaph-ro-di-tus and others “messengers” (apostoloi) in the churches (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). Prophets have the spiritual gift of prophecy and speak to strengthen, encourage, and comfort the church (Acts 15:32; 1 Cor. 14:3). Overseers (also called “elders” or “pastors”) are qualified leaders who teach, shepherd, and exercise authority in the church (1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:2). Evangelists and missionaries proclaim the gospel and aim to win converts to Christ (Acts 21:8; 2 Tim. 4:5). Those ministers who are faithful to the gospel deserve support (3 John 8).

Occupations and Professions

Agriculture and Farming

Herding and Hunting

Builders and Craftsmen

Musicians

Government, Politics, and Military

Trade and Economics

Servants and Slaves

Religious Service

Pastor

Pastors provide spiritual oversight for God’s people. The fact that the term “pastor” appears only a single time in most English translations (Eph. 4:11) has more to do with the peculiarities of the English language than anything else. In Greek, the same word, poimēn, is used for both “shepherd” and “pastor,” so that all the references in Scripture to shepherds and sheep need to be studied together. Ultimately, Jesus is the “great Shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. 13:20) and the “Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25), so everything from Ps. 23 to Jesus’ story of the good shepherd (John 10) are relevant role models for being a pastor. In the NT, this responsibility was entrusted to called and gifted leaders. For example, Peter is called to “take care of” (Gk. poimainō, “to shepherd”) Jesus’ sheep (John 21:16). This responsibility is given to the Ephesian elders/overseers in Acts 20:17, 28 and to the elders/overseers in 1 Pet. 5:1–2. God warns of the curse of “shepherds who lack understanding” (Isa. 56:11), who “do not inquire of the Lord” (Jer. 10:21), and who scatter the sheep (Jer. 23:1). One of God’s greatest blessings is giving his people shepherds (or pastors) after his own heart to lead them “with knowledge and understanding” (Jer. 3:15).

Profession

Agriculture and Farming

Herding and Hunting

Builders and Craftsmen

Musicians

Government, Politics, and Military

Trade and Economics

Servants and Slaves

Religious Service

Promise

A technical term for “promise” does not appear in the OT, but its concept is present throughout Scripture. God unfolds the history of redemption by employing the idea of promises. The writers of the NT repeatedly assert that Jesus Christ has fulfilled God’s promises in the OT (e.g., Luke 24:44–48; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Old Testament

The promises in the OT are closely related to the history of salvation. At each stage of redemptive history, God delivered a new message about redemption, usually in the form of a covenant. Immediately after the fall of humankind, God first revealed his plan of salvation: the promise that the seed of the woman would ultimately crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). After the flood, God made a covenant with Noah, promising never again to destroy the earth with a flood (Gen. 8:21–9:17).

Most remarkable is the promise that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 17:4–8; 22:17–18; 26:1–5; 28:13–15). God called Abraham in order to give him three specific blessings: the land, descendants, and the channel of blessing among the nations. As a sign of his promise, God made a covenant of circumcision with Abraham and his descendants (17:10–14). With Isaac (26:1–5) and Jacob (28:13–15), God repeatedly reconfirmed the promise made to Abraham. At the time of the exodus and later the settlement in Canaan, God’s promise to Abraham was partially fulfilled by multiplying his descendants into millions and by giving them the promised land.

At Mount Sinai, God made another covenant with the Israelites. In this covenant, God promised that they would be his “treasured possession” among the nations if they would obey him and keep his covenant (Exod. 19:5). God’s special blessings were pronounced for them to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (19:6). For this purpose, God gave them the Ten Commandments, which became the religious and ethical standard for his covenant people (20:1–17). In the book of Deuteronomy, moreover, God’s promises were made in the form of blessings to the obedient and of curses to the disobedient (Deut. 28). Later these became the criteria by which the kings of Israel were judged to determine whether they had lived an obedient life.

According to 2 Sam. 7:11–16, God made an eternal covenant with David, promising the permanence of David’s house, kingdom, and throne. In this covenant it was also promised that his offspring would build the house of the Lord. The Davidic covenant was partially fulfilled at the time of Solomon, who as king built the house of the Lord, the first temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:15–25). Later, in the period of the classical prophets, when the hope for the Davidic throne was endangered, the permanence of the Davidic throne and kingdom reappeared in the form of messianic prophecy (Jer. 23:5–8; Ezek. 37:24–28). This promise was ultimately fulfilled by the coming of Jesus Christ from the line of David (Matt. 1:1–17).

The history of Israel shows that although the nation repeatedly broke God’s covenants, he remained faithful to them. According to Num. 23:19, God’s promises are absolutely trustworthy: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” The trustworthiness of God’s promises results from his unchanging character (Ps. 110:4; Mal. 3:6–7). The almighty God has the power to fulfill his promises (Isa. 55:11). When Joshua finished conquering the land of Canaan, he confessed that God was faithful in keeping all his promises to his ancestors (Josh. 21:45; 23:14–15). Joshua himself witnessed that trusting God’s promises is a life-and-death issue. Those who had not trusted his promise to give them the land of Canaan perished in the wilderness, but those who had trusted his promise were allowed to enter it (Num. 14:1–35).

New Testament

The central message of the NT is that God’s promises in the OT are fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Matthew’s numerous citation formulas are evidence of this theme. In Luke 4:16–21 Jesus pronounces the fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise (about the Messiah’s ministry [Isa. 61:1–3]) in his own life. The book of Acts specifically states that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit are the fulfillment of the OT promises (2:29–31; 13:32–34). Jesus’ identity both as the descendant of David (Acts 13:23) and as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:21–26; cf. Deut. 18:15–18) is also regarded as the fulfillment of the OT.

Paul’s view of God’s promises is summarized in this statement: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20). According to Rom. 1:2–3, Paul regards the gospel as the message that God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son.” In Rom. 4 Abraham’s faith is described in terms of his trust in God’s promises, which leads to his righteousness. He is presented as our model of faith in God’s promises. The famous phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor. 15:3–4 is, in a sense, understood by Paul as the fulfillment of God’s promises regarding Christ’s death and resurrection.

In the book of Hebrews, the concept of promise plays an important role. In Heb. 6 Abraham is presented as the exemplary man who trusted in God’s promise. The author exhorts the Hebrew Christians to follow Abraham’s model of trust in God’s promise (6:12–20). The author also asserts that Jesus’ new covenant is superior to the old one because his ministry “is established on better promises” (8:6). In Heb. 11 the faith of the great OT saints is acclaimed in terms of their faith in God’s promises.

In the NT, God makes new promises based on the work of Christ, including the final resurrection and the second coming of Christ (John 5:29; 11:25–26; 1 Cor. 15:48–57; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:13–18). Furthermore, the message of the gospel is presented as multiple promises, including eternal life, the fullness of life in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the peace of God, the knowledge of God, and the joy of God (Matt. 28:18–20; John 3:16; 10:10; 14:16, 27; 16:20–24; 17:25–26; Phil. 4:4–9; 1 John 1:9).

Human Promises

The Scriptures contain many cases of people making promises to other people. For example, Abraham made promises to the king of Sodom and to Abimelek (Gen. 14:22–24; 21:22–24). The Israelite spies made a promise to Rahab (Josh. 2:12–21). People also make promises to God: Jacob, Jephthah, Hannah, and the returning exiles (Gen. 28:20–21; Judg. 11:29–40; 1 Sam. 1:11–20; Neh. 10:28–29). Human promises usually are accompanied by the taking of an oath (Gen. 14:22; 21:24; Deut. 6:13; Josh. 2:12–14) or the declaration of a curse in case of its breach (Ruth 1:17; 1 Sam. 14:24; 2 Sam. 3:35; 1 Kings 2:23). It is imperative to keep the promise that one makes to a human being or to God (Num. 30:1–2; Ps. 50:14). In Mal. 2:14–16, divorce is regarded as a breaking of the oath between husband and wife. In OT times, people were afraid of curses falling upon them when they broke a promise. The Bible warns of the danger of making false promises, as doing so will bring about sin and judgment (Lev. 19:12; Deut. 23:21; Zech. 8:17). It is an axiom of the wisdom literature that one should not make promises rashly or lightly (Prov. 20:25; Eccles. 5:1–7), and Jesus prohibits the taking of any oath because of the possibility of its breach (Matt. 5:33–37).

Providence

The word “providence” comes from the Latin word providentia, which means “foresight.” However, the modern theological use of the term refers not to foresight or foreknowl-edge per se but rather to how God continues to sustain and guide his creation. There is no single term in either the OT or the NT that translates as “providence.” The one time the word occurs in the NIV (Job 10:12), the Hebrew word (peqqudah) is one that the NIV in other places usually translates with words such as “care,” “charge,” or “oversight.” The concept of divine providence comes not from any one word but rather from numerous statements in the Bible that speak of God’s continuing supervision of his world. The biblical data can perhaps best be organized under four headings: created order, world history, salvation history, and individual history. These headings are, however, not discrete; they continually intersect.

Created Order

Scripture testifies in numerous places to God’s ongoing supervision of his creation. The psalms play a special role here. As one commentator has remarked, there are no nature lyrics in the psalms, only admiration and awe at how God runs his world. God actively cares for the land and waters it, causes grass to grow, plants trees, and makes sure that they are well watered (Pss. 65:9; 104:14, 16). God brings darkness on the land and tells the sun when to set and when to rise (Ps. 104:19–20). God is the zookeeper who makes sure all the animals are fed (Ps. 104:27). Every birth of every living creature is regarded as a new creative work of God, and he constantly renews the face of the earth (Ps. 104:30).

God blankets the earth with snow and lays down a sheet of frost (Ps. 147:16). When the snow and frost melt, it is because God commanded it by his word and sent breezes to make the melting waters flow (Ps. 147:18). Hail, snow, clouds, and stormy winds do their Master’s bidding (Ps. 148:8). God commands the morning to dawn and keeps the snow and hail in storehouses, ready to be deployed on the day of battle (Job 38:12, 22–23). The sea waves roar because God stirs them up (Jer. 31:35). God even speaks of being in a covenant relationship with his creation (Jer. 33:20, 25).

In the NT, we find that Jesus Christ himself sustains “all things by his powerful word” (Heb. 1:3). In him “all things hold together” (Col. 1:17).

World History

What happens on the world scene is under God’s sovereign control. If the nations are scattered over the world and speak different languages, it is because God made it so (Gen. 11:1–9). God determines whether the nations are blessed or cursed (Gen. 12:3). God is the one who has apportioned each nation’s inher-i-tance and has established their boundaries (Deut. 32:8). Yahweh is the God of Israel, which is his special possession, but he has also appointed deities for the other nations to worship (Deut. 4:19 [evidently false gods, but still under Yahweh’s sovereignty]). He judges the world and carries out justice for the peoples, foils the plans of the nations, forms the hearts of all people, reigns over the nations and guides them (Pss. 9:8; 33:10, 15; 47:8; 67:4).

It is by God’s sanction that kings reign, and a king’s heart is like a watercourse, which God can redirect at will (Prov. 8:15; 21:1). God “does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth” (Dan. 4:35). All thrones, powers, rulers, and authorities “were created through him and for him” (Col. 1:16). God is actively working to bring the whole universe and all peoples and nations under one head, his Son, Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:10).

Salvation History

Within world history, God has also worked through one particular people, the Israelites, to accomplish his redemptive purposes. When Joseph told his brothers that what they had intended to do to him for evil, God had intended for good, for “the saving of many lives” (Gen. 50:20), he may not have fully realized how much his words were in accord with, and could even be said to summarize, redemptive history. God took the harm that Joseph’s brothers intended and used it to fulfill the promises that he had made years earlier to Abraham with regard to what would happen to his descendants (Gen. 12:1–3). In the early chapters of Exodus, God’s sovereignty over the “forces of nature” intersects with his deliverance of the Israelites in the plagues that he brings on the Egyptians. Of course, God had raised up Pharaoh for the very purpose of displaying his own glory in victory over Pharaoh and “all the gods of Egypt” (Exod. 9:16; 12:12; cf. Rom. 9:17).

Throughout the ensuing Israelite history, God demonstrates his providential care for the Israelites. The Jews return from their Babylonian captivity because God raised up Cyrus, even though Cyrus did not acknowledge him (Isa. 44:28–45:13), for the very purpose of issuing the decree that allowed them to return. Even in narratives in which God’s name is not mentioned, such as the book of Esther, we are to understand that God is directing the action, and certainly the narrator wants us to connect the account of the origin of the festival of Purim (“lots”) with the idea that “the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:33).

In the NT the act that secures our redemption, the crucifixion of Jesus, is not an unforeseen occurrence that God makes the best of; rather, the death of Jesus is that which he himself would “accomplish” (Luke 9:31 NRSV [NIV: “bring to fulfillment”]). No one takes Jesus’ life from him; he lays it down of his own accord (John 10:18). Jesus even gives Judas Iscariot directions on the night of his betrayal (John 13:27). What happens in the crucifixion is in accord with “God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23) and with what his “power and will had decided beforehand should happen” (4:28).

Individual History

Jesus promises that for those who seek the kingdom of God, “all these things will be given to you as well” (Matt. 6:33). If God feeds the birds of the air and clothes the grass of the field, much more will he take care to feed and clothe us (Matt. 6:26, 30). Indeed, “in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28).

Robbery

Sheep Market

Transportation and 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.

Travel

Travel by Land

Travel by Sea

Summary

Volunteers

Those who offer themselves freely and willingly, without compulsion or consideration of value in return, to perform a task, make a vow, or serve another. In the OT, volunteers usually serve God (Deut. 23:23; 2 Chron. 17:16; Ps. 110:3), Israel (Ezra 7:13; Neh. 11:2), or a leader in Israel (Judg. 5:2, 9; 1 Chron. 28:21). God himself is the ultimate volunteer, as he freely gives place, purpose, and a partner to Adam (Gen. 2:15–22); unilaterally covenants with Abram to give him descendants, blessing, and land (Gen. 12:2–3; 15:17–21); liberates Israel from bondage in Egypt (Exod. 6:6–8; Deut. 20:1; Josh. 24:17; Ps. 81:10); and remains faithful to Israel despite its repeated failures (Pss. 68:35; 106:44–46).

In the NT, God is also the sender of Jesus (Matt. 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 4:18–21; John 4:34; 5:24, 30, 36–37), who heals of his own volition (Luke 5:13), gives rest to the weary (Matt. 11:28), and lays down his life of his own accord for our redemption (Mark 10:45; John 10:18; Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 5:2; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18–19). With Jesus as the standard, the concept of willingly giving of oneself and one’s possessions runs throughout the NT (Eph. 5:1–2). Christians are called to love and serve one another in spiritual and practical ways (Acts 2:44–45; Rom. 12:9–21; 1 Thess. 5:15–18; Philem. 14). They are also to love their enemies and pray for their persecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35). Those who wish to lead must first volunteer themselves as servants to others (Matt. 20:27; Mark 9:35; Luke 22:26). Elders are to shepherd voluntarily (1 Pet. 5:2). Paul, who urges Christians to offer their bodies as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1), is himself a model of volunteerism and self-sacrifice (Acts 20:34–35; 21:13; 1 Cor. 9:19–23; 2 Cor. 4:5; 11:23–27).

Work

Agriculture and Farming

Herding and Hunting

Builders and Craftsmen

Musicians

Government, Politics, and Military

Trade and Economics

Servants and Slaves

Religious Service

Showing 1 to 50 of144 results

1. Parable of How Four Boys Got There

Illustration

Four boys stood watching the parade some ten miles from the high school classes they were supposed to be. The event was important to them.

"How did you get here" asked Dick.

"I borrowed my father's car."

"I took the bus," said Bill.

"I thumbed a ride," said Jack.

"Well, at least we all got here, didn't we," said Bill. "Nothing could keep me away."

"Me either," said Jack. "When I want to go some place, I go."

It is surprising how easily we find a way to go where we want to go. And it is strange how difficult we make it to get to some places where we ought to be.

When we stand before the altar of God, and worship each Sabbath Day, each of us may ask the question, "What brought me here?" And whatever the answer, if we truly worship and strengthen our portion in faith, we may say, "Thanks be to God who led me to His throne."

We are not meant to judge what brought people to church, for the Creator works in strange ways His wonders to perform. John Wesley observing the drunk in the gutter said, "There, but for the grace of God, go I."

When we observe those who receive great honors, we may question, "How did they get them?" But we ought to rejoice that good deeds have been performed. It is natural to be attracted to dramatic events. Next best, to being in the parade for the boys, was to watch it. Next best to doing good deeds is to observe them and encourage them.

2. The Voice of a Stranger

Illustration

Verne Arens

I once knew someone who was a leader in the congregation. At one time or another he had filled most (if not all) of the important leadership positions in that church. More than that, however, oftentimes he was the one who would volunteer for those tough, dirty jobs that no one else wanted: washing dishes after a potluck supper, helping to teach the confirmation class, stacking shelves at the food bank.

This is the kind of person you would like to clone and with whom you'd like to fill the congregation, right? Wrong! This person was a delight to have around until things didn't go his way, and then he was a nightmare: disruptive, divisive, even destructive. He didn't understand the meaning of community and was not a team player. And when (not for the first time) he and his wife climbed into their huff-mobile and drove away after some disagreement, the congregation finally had the good sense not to beg them to come back. Finally that congregation had learned to distinguish between the voice of a shepherd and the voice of a stranger.

3. The Pastoral Search Report

Illustration

James Kegel

A pastoral report: "We have been unable to find a suitable candidate for this congregation though we have one promising prospect. We have followed up the recommendations from church members with interviews or calling at least three references. This is a confidential report on the prospective candidates:

ADAM: Good man but has had problems with his wife and children. He and his wife have been known to walk around outside without wearing clothes.

NOAH: Former pastorate of 120 years with no converts. Prone to unrealistic building projects.

ABRAHAM: References reported that he once offered to share his wife with another man.

JOSEPH: Big thinker, but brags, believes in dream – interpretation and has a prison record.

MOSES: Modest and meek man but a poor communicator. Stutters. Known to blow his stack and act rashly. Left an earlier position under a murder charge.

DAVID: The most promising leader of all. Very musical. We discovered he had an affair with his neighbor's wife.

SOLOMON: Great preacher but our parsonage wouldn't hold all his wives and children. Has grandiose tastes.

ELIJAH: Prone to depression; collapses under pressure.

HOSEA: A tender, loving pastor but his wife is a floosy or worse.

DEBORAH: Pushy female.

JEREMIAH: Emotionally unstable, alarmist, negative, always lamenting things.

ISAIAH: Claims to have seen angels. Has trouble with his language.

JONAH: Refused God's call until he was forced to obey when he was swallowed by a fish. He said the fish spit him out on the shore. We hung up.

AMOS: Backward and unpolished. Would only fit in a poor rural congregation.

JOHN: Says he is a Baptist but doesn't dress like one. Has slept outdoors for months on end, eats a weird diet. Doesn't work well with others – we suggest he become a camp director instead of a pastor.

PAUL: Powerful CEO type and fascinating preacher. Short on tact. So long-winded he has been known to preach all night.

JESUS: Popular at times, but once his church grew to 5000 he managed to offend them all and his church dwindled to 12 people. Seldom stays in one place every long. And of course, he is single.

JUDAS: His references are solid. A steady plodder and good money manager. Conservative and well-connected with the community and religious leaders. This is the candidate we recommend to the congregation..."

4. From A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23

Illustration

Phillip Keller

As I have moved among men and women from all strata of society as both a lay pastor and as a scientist I have become increasingly aware of one thing. It is the boss, the manager, the Master in people's lives who makes the difference in their destiny.

I have known some of the wealthiest men on this continent intimately—-also some of the leading scientists and professional people. Despite their dazzling outward show of success, despite their affluence and their prestige, they remained poor in spirit, shriveled in soul, and unhappy in life. They were joyless people held in the iron grip and heartless ownership of the wrong master.

By way of contrast, I have numerous friends among relatively poor people—-people who have known hardship, disaster and the struggle to stay afloat financially. But because they belong to Christ and have recognized Him as Lord and Master of their lives, their owner and manager, they are permeated by a deep, quiet, settled peace that is beautiful to behold.

It is indeed a delight to visit some of these humble homes where men and women are rich in spirit, generous in heart and large of soul. They radiate a serene confidence and quiet joy that surmounts all the tragedies of their time.

They are under God's care and they know it. They have entrusted themselves to Christ's control and found contentment.

5. Sheep Know Their Shepherd

Illustration

In her book The Preaching Life, Barbara Brown Taylor tells of a conversation she had with a friend who grew up on a sheep farm in the Midwest. According to him, sheep are not dumb at all. "It is the cattle ranchers who are responsible for spreading that ugly rumor, and all because sheep do not behave like cows. Cows are herded from the rear by hooting cowboys with cracking whips, but that will not work with sheep at all. Stand behind them making loud noises and all they will do is run around behind you, because they prefer to be led. You push cows, her friend said, but you lead sheep, and they will not go anywhere that someone else does not go first. Their shepherd-who goes ahead of them to show them that everything is all right."

Sheep know their shepherd and their shepherd knows them.

He went on to say that "it never ceased to amaze him, growing up, that he could walk right through a sleeping flock without disturbing a single one of them, while a stranger could not step foot in the fold without causing pandemonium."

Sheep & shepherds develop a language of their own.

6. I Am The Door

Illustration

George Adam Smith

George Adam Smith, the 19th century biblical scholar tells of traveling one day in the holy land and coming across a shepherd and his sheep. He fell into conversation with him and the man showed him the fold into which the sheep were led at night. It consisted of four walls, with a way in. Smith asked him, "This is where they go at night?"

"Yes," said the shepherd, "and when they are in there, they are perfectly safe."

"But there is no door," said Smith.

"I am the door," said the shepherd.

He was not a Christian man and wasn't speaking in the language of the New Testament. He was speaking from an Arab shepherd's viewpoint. Smith looked and him and asked, "What do you mean you are the door?" "When the light has gone," said the shepherd, "and all the sheep are inside, I lie in that open space, and no sheep ever goes out but across my body, and no wolf comes in unless he crosses my body; I am the door."

7. What Have You Heard?

Illustration

Staff

A rabbi and his pupil were discussing God's Word:

Rabbi: Herschel, do you know the sacred scriptures?
Pupil: Yes, teacher, I have been studying them.
Rabbi: And, do you know the phrase, 'Thus have I heard?'
Pupil: Oh, yes, that is throughout the scriptures.
Rabbi: Herschel, what have you heard?

8. The Doorkeeper

Illustration

Staff

A sheepfold was a walled enclosure made of stones. Several flocks of sheep were kept in the sheepfold, and when a legitimate shepherd came to get his flock, the doorkeeper or watchman of the fold would let the shepherd pass into the fold. The shepherd would call the sheep, and the sheep, who knew his voice, would come to him, and he would lead his flock out to pasture. When they were away from the sheepfold, the shepherd would stay out all night with his flock, finding some kind of shelter in the pasture area, and he himself would act as the door, so that no wild animal could get by him.

9. At the Crossroads, There is a Cross.

Illustration

Oliver North was one of the embedded journalists in the Iraqi war. He told the following story: This is the eighth war I've been to, the best part of it was the morning after the palace battle and leaving the capital with the 5th Marines, we're driving north toward Tikrit, [Hussein's] home town, and it's not even dawn. There are tens of thousands of people on the street cheering the United States, President Bush, and the U.S. Marines. And a vehicle stops I'm with the battalion commander, the sergeant major, crusty veteran of two wars and a lot of gunfights in between sitting next to me, a little girl comes up to the window. Here's a guy with a 50-caliber machine gun standing up between us, driver, corporal, battalion commander, sergeant major and me. The little girl hands him an American flag that she had drawn by hand and says in perfect English, we love you.

I look over at the sergeant major, and I'm choked up, and he's got tears coming down his face. So I, in typical North fashion, I say, sergeant major, what's the matter? He says, "Oh, a little dust in the eyes." A few miles later on he stops and he's holding it in his hand and he looks at me and says this is proof that what we did was the right thing.

Life is complicated. How can you deny the experience of those soldiers? But what happened in Iraq in the subsequent years was wrong. The country fell apart due to lack of leadership, outside forces, will of the people. It was wrong; it was right. The answer? I don't have it, but I know that this is right where God meets us. In the muck and mire. In the gains and loses. At the crossroads, there is a cross, where God does not abandon us but meets us in Christ.

10. He Knows Our Names

Illustration

Donald B. Strobe

There is an old story of a census taker who was making his rounds in the lower East side of New York, who interviewed an Irish woman bending over her washtub. "Lady, I am taking the census. What's your name? How many children have you?" She replied, "Well, let me see. My name is Mary. And then there's Marcia, and Duggie, and Amy, and Patrick, and..." "Never mind the names," he broke in, "just give me the numbers." She straightened up, hands on hips, and with a twinkle in her eye, said, "I'll have ye know, sir, we ain't got into numberin' them yet. We ain't run out of names!" The image of God as the Good Shepherd tells us that is the way it is with God. He knows us by name.

11. How Do You Know My Name?

Illustration

John R. Claypool

I've always loved the little story about the boy who's trying to learn the Lord's Prayer, so he kneels by his bed, and says:

Our Father, who are in heaven
How do you know my name?

Such individualized affection will always remain a mystery to us mortals, and at the same time, let us never forget we're made in the image of that extraordinary love. And doing what Jesus did in loving each one he ever met as if there were none other in all the world is at least an ideal toward which we can reach even if it always remains utterly beyond our complete grasp.

12. The Hired Man

Illustration

Clive Harffy

My wife and I used to live in Madrid, Spain. On a visit to Segovia we were in a small village above the town. A heated argument was taking place in a local bar (cafe). It turned out that the owner of some sheep was berating two hired hands. Their crime? The night before there had been a fiesta in the village. Not wishing to miss the fun, they had abandoned the sheep and gone to the fiesta. The sheep had been found wandering the streets, no doubt looking for the shepherds. A true story illustrating the truth that the hired man does not care about the sheep.

13. Don’t Count the Sheep

Illustration

Leonard Sweet

Economist and seer E.F. Schumacher had a lovely story about an old shepherd. "Don't count the sheep," he said, "or else they won't thrive." By this he meant that counting the sheep turned each live, unique animal into an abstraction, a symbol of a sheep, each one like the next one. In this way one would begin to lose sight of them as individual sheep. One would fail to notice whether they looked healthy, acted normal, and in general were becoming their best sheep selves. The late John Holt, school reformer/ educator/amateur cellist who tells this story, concludes with the observation that "What we easily forget, in our passionate twentieth-century love affair with abstract thinking, is that to make an abstraction out of some part of reality we must take some meaning out of it." (See Holt's Learning All the Time [Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1989], 104.) Remember: the shepherds with whom Jesus was familiar knew each of their sheep by name, and called the flock to their side each morning.

14. A Point of Reference

Illustration

James Merritt

During World War II, the English government knew that Hitler was planning to invade the British Islands. They encouraged their people to prepare for the invasion and they did several things: they boasted their defenses, they put guards on constant watch, and they developed early warning systems and evacuation routes.

They did one more thing - the government passed a law requiring every community to take down all the road signs and any sign that named any town or village. They knew the Germans had maps of England, but if they couldn't locate themselves on those maps, they would be slowed in their progress as they approached London. Without any sign or any point of reference, the troops would just wander aimlessly around.

The world does that to us. It takes our roads signs away. And we live our lives lost; not knowing where we are and don't know how to get to where we need to go, so husbands and wives will wander away from their marriages. Children will wander away from their parents. People will walk off cliffs of drugs, alcohol, or materialism. Sheep need guidance. We need direction and leadership.

That is the job of the shepherd. What is the second verse in the twenty-third Psalm? "He makes me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside quiet waters."

15. So Who Needs a Shepherd?

Illustration

Donald B. Stobe

One Sunday morning, following the church service, a layman accosted the pastor and said, "Tom, this church has been insulting me for years, and I did not know it until this week." The stunned pastor replied, "What on earth do you mean?" "Well," said the layman, every Sunday morning the call to worship in this church ends with the words, ‘We are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.' And I have heard ministers over the years call the congregation, God's flock.' Then this past week I visited the Chicago stockyards. There I discovered that sheep are just about the dumbest animals God ever created. Why, they are so stupid that they even follow one another docilely into the slaughterhouse. Even pigs are smarter than sheep, and I would certainly be angry if my church called me a pig' every Sunday morning. So I'm not at all sure I want to come to church and be called a sheep' any longer...even God's sheep'."

The man had a point. But whether we like it or not, that is the language of the Bible: both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. We are called "God's sheep." The favorite psalm of many people is the 23rd, and it begins by saying, "The Lord is my shepherd..." And if "the Lord is my shepherd," then I am one of the Lord's sheep.

16. Yearning for Security

Illustration

Scott Hoezee

Perhaps the imagery seems outdated, but has humanity in the modern world really outgrown its need for someone to love us fiercely and forever the way only a truly good shepherd can? In our quiet and secret moments, we yearn for someone stronger and wiser to take care of us. As Neal Plantinga once wrote, those of us who were raised in solid and good homes carry around with us the memory of how delicious it was to be tucked into our cozy beds at night without worries that would threaten our rest. Kids go to bed without fretting about whether ice will back up under the shingles, or whether the forecasted heavy weather will turn violent, or whether the bills can be paid, or whether someone at the IRS might just find that one tax deduction a bit TOO creative. No, as children we wriggled drowsily in our beds awash in the knowledge that someone else was in charge and so we happily allowed ourselves to slip over the edge of slumber the way only a child can, with literally no cares to make our minds too busy to sleep.

We adults carry that memory in our sub-conscious and we yearn for something like it again. Indeed, we pine for it even more acutely because now we know what it is like to live without that security. Now we know what it's like to wait for results from the pathology lab. Now we know what it's like to watch a deadly storm roar ever closer on the TV's radar scope. Now maybe we've gone through the pain of having to bid first grandparents and then parents and finally even friends a final goodbye.

17. Mixing Up the Old With the New

Illustration

Scott Hoezee

Those of you who are familiar with art may recall a funny habit which many Medieval painters practiced for quite a long time in Europe, and particularly in Germany. Artists such as Lukas Cranach and others painted many depictions of biblical scenes but they did so with the curious twist of dressing the biblical characters in the contemporary garb of the Middle Ages. So in one Cranach painting of which I have a copy, you see Mary and Joseph tending to their newborn son in a Bethlehem stable. You also see shepherds and others in the picture but every last one of them looks like a then-contemporary European. The men are wearing tights, silk shirts with puffy sleeves, and those big hats common to that era. All in all it was an interesting way to contemporize ancient stories.

But that mixing up of the old with the new and the past with the current must also have caused some eyebrows to be raised. Can you imagine what most conservative Christians today would say if some artist painted a portrait depicting Joseph in a pair of Gap jeans, Mary wearing Ralph Lauren blouse, and the magi in snappy suits from Armani?! There would almost surely be an outcry. You should not import the holy, sacred images of Scripture into a contemporary setting like that. It creates confusion, doesn't seem terribly respectful. And anyway we perhaps risk "losing" something of the original presentation by mixing it up with the trappings of our modern world.

But in a real way, can we even avoid looking at the old through the lens of what is current?

18. We Don’t Have to Sneak In

Illustration

Adrian Dieleman

The night before a camping trip one boy was staying at the home of another when suddenly he realized he forgot his fishing gear. "Let's run to my house and get it," he said. "Isn't it too late?" asked his friend. "Everybody will be sleeping."

"We'll sneak in," said the first boy. "Come on."

When they got to his house all the doors were locked. He decided to pry the screen off his bedroom window and enter that way. He tried to be quiet, but the noise woke his parents. His dad grabbed a baseball bat and went to investigate. The boy had one leg in the window when his dad yelled, "Stop, or I'll hit you!"

The boy froze. "Don't! It's me, Dad!" he said.

His father flicked on a light. "Why didn't you ring the doorbell?" he said. "You didn't have to try and sneak in."

The front door was available to him but he chose another way. So often that's the tempted to try it our way instead of the through the gate available, but the consequences of the short cut are far greater than the responsibilities at the front door.

19. Compliments of the Author

Illustration

Jack W. Baca

There was once a little girl who wanted to give her grandmother a very special gift. She bought a beautiful Bible, but decided that she needed to write something special in it. She looked through some of her father's books, and in one of his favorite books she found an inscription she liked that she copied into the Bible. When the grandmother opened the Bible, she opened the front cover and there read, "To Granny, with the compliments of the Author."

That is who Jesus is, the gateway to heaven, compliments of the Author.

20. My Friend Knows the Shepherd

Illustration

Alan Carr

Two men were called into a large classroom to recite the Twenty-third Psalm. One was a published orator trained in speech technique and drama. He repeated the psalm in a powerful way. When he finished, the audience cheered and even asked for an encore that they might hear his wonderful voice again. Then the other man, who was much older, repeated the same words - 'The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want...' But when he finished, no sound came from the large class. Instead, people sat in a deep mood of devotion and prayer.

Then the first man, the orator, stood to his feet. 'I have a confession to make,' he said. 'The difference between what you have just heard from my old friend, and what you heard from me is this: I know the Psalm, my friend knows the Shepherd.'

21. God Is Like a Shepherd

Illustration

Frederick Buechner

'God's in His Heaven, all's right with the world,' Robert Browning wrote, and the psalm is not saying that any more than you or I can say it either. Whoever wrote it had walked through the valley of the shadow the way one way or another you and I have walked there too. He says so himself. He believed that God was in his Heaven despite the fact that he knew as well as we do that all was far from right with the world. And he believed that God was like a shepherd.

When I think of shepherds, I think of one man in particular I know who used to keep sheep here in Rupert a few years back. Some of them he gave names to, and some of them he didn't, but he knew then equally well either way. If one of them got lost, he didn't have a moment's peace till he found it again. If one of them got sick or hurt, he would move Heaven and earth to get it well again. He would feed them out of a bottle when they were new-born lambs if for some reason the mother wasn't around or wouldn't 'own' them, as he put it. He always called them in at the end of the day so the wild dogs wouldn't get them.

I've seen him wade through snow up to his knees with a bale of hay in each hand to feed them on bitter cold winter evenings, shaking it out and putting it in the manger. I've stood with him in their shed with a forty watt bulb hanging down from the low ceiling to light up their timid, greedy, foolish, half holy faces as they pushed and butted each other to get at it because if God is like a shepherd, there are more than just a few ways, needless to say, that people like you and me are like sheep. Being timid, greedy, foolish, and half holy is only part of it. Like sheep we get hungry, and hungry for more than just food. We get thirsty for more than just drink. Our souls get hungry and thirsty; in fact it is often that sense of inner emptiness that makes us know we have souls in the first place.

There is nothing that the world has to give us, there is nothing that we have to give to each other even, that ever quite fills them. But once in a while that inner emptiness is filled even so. That is part of what the psalm means by saying that God is like a shepherd, I think. It means that, like a shepherd, he feeds us. He feeds that part of us which is hungriest and most in need of feeding.

22. Love and Living for Others

Illustration

Wiley Stephens

Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said, "When a chap is in love, he will go out in all kinds of weather to keep an appointment with his beloved. Love can be demanding; in fact, more demanding than law. It has its own imperatives. Think of a mother sitting by the bedside of a sick child through the night, impelled only by love. Nothing is too much trouble for love." Jesus makes it clear as he draws near the cross that his motivation is love. He is choosing to make this sacrifice. He is choosing to be faithful to what God has put before him.

There is a tale that in the first century a man came to Tertullian, a father in the early church. And in trying to justify some compromises the man had felt he had to make, commented, "I have to live, don't I?" to which Tertullian is reported to have said, "Do you?" The challenge is to focus away from self and to others, to ask where our real values are-survival only, or living as to make a difference.

Leo Tolstoy said, "The only certain happiness in life is to live for others." It is when we see the world with a larger level than self. It is when we become concerned with others that we find the depth of God's love for our lives.

23. That’s All I Want

Illustration

B. Wiley Stephens

A little girl reciting the 23rd Psalm began, "The Lord is my shepherd; that's all I want." Maybe she missed the wording, but she sure got the theology right. To have Jesus as our shepherd is indeed a blessing. As he moves towards the cross, Jesus holds up this model of the good shepherd, reminding his listeners that a good shepherd would lay down his life for the sheep. He would give his life to protect the sheep from thieves, wild animals, or whatever danger might confront the flock. We can give him our allegiance because of his commitment to us.

24. Nibbled Lost

Illustration

David Beckett

The story is told of a farmer who had just rescued a lost sheep. When asked how the sheep got lost, the farmer replied, "They just nibble themselves lost. They go from one tuft of grass to another, until at last they've lost their way." That's what happens in life, isn't it? We nibble away at life with little purpose or direction, until it's gone and we have no idea where it went.

In a world that's increasingly more scattered and scared, our task as Christ's Church is to translate and transmit the voice of the Good Shepherd to all those who are lost, hurting, and alone. It's also about following Jesus' example and welcoming everyone into the fold. Even we sheep should be able to understand that.

25. Leading the Way

Illustration

Lee Griess

A new kind of plane was on its first flight. It was full of reporters and journalists. A little while after takeoff, the captain's voice was heard over the speakers. "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm delighted to be your pilot for this plane's historic first flight. I can tell you the flight is going well. Nevertheless, I have to tell you about a minor inconvenience that has occurred. The passengers on the right side can, if they look out their window, see that the closest engine is slightly vibrating. That shouldn't worry you, because this plane is equipped with four engines and we are flying along smoothly at an acceptable altitude. As long as you are looking out the right side, you might as well look at the other engine on that side. You will notice that it is glowing, or more precisely one should say, burning. That shouldn't worry you either, since this plane is designed to fly with just two engines if necessary, and we are maintaining an acceptable altitude and speed. As long as we are looking out the plane, those of you on the left side shouldn't worry if you look out your side of the plane and notice that one engine that is supposed to be there is missing. It fell off about ten minutes ago. Let me tell you that we are amazed that the plane is doing so well without it. However, I will call your attention to something a little more serious. Along the center aisle all the way down the plane a crack has appeared. Some of you are, I suppose, able to look through the crack and may even notice the waves of the Atlantic Ocean below. In fact, those of you with very good eyesight may be able to notice a small lifeboat that was thrown from the plane. Well, ladies and gentlemen, you will be happy to know that your captain is keeping an eye on the progress of the plane from that lifeboat below."

Now, I realize that there are some situations that we ought not joke about, and a plane crash is perhaps one of them. But that little story about the plane and its pilot seemed so descriptive of our lives and the world today that I couldn't help but tell it. Sometimes we find ourselves in situations very similar to that plane flight. Everything around us seems to be falling apart and the person in charge seems to be as remote as the captain in the raft on the ocean far below.

But the person in charge of our lives is not remote. He is our Shepherd and he is leading the way. Leading us; giving us eternal life; assuring us we will never perish; and, my friends, no one can snatch you out of his hands.

26. She Knew The Good Shepherd

Illustration

Lee Griess

Missionary Herb Schaefer tells about a thirteen-year-old Chinese girl who continued with her family to worship God secretly in their home during the Cultural Revolution in China, that time when religion was forbidden and worship was banned by the Chinese rulers. One evening the Red Guards burst into their small home and threatened them for worshiping Jesus. A small altar with a crude cross stood in one corner of the room. Determined to put a stop to their worship and command complete allegiance to the Communist state, the Red Guard lieutenant demanded they spit on the cross. They refused. The lieutenant became indignant and shouted at them that unless they spat on the cross they would be killed.

Finally the elder in the group came forward, spat on the cross and left. One by one they followed, doing the same disgusting thing until only the thirteen-year-old remained. She refused to do what the others had done. "I cannot and I will not," she replied. Then she told the lieutenant the depth of her faith and said that she was willing to die for it. Remarkably the Lieutenant seemed pleased. "This is the kind of devotion we want for the new China: people who will commit themselves so totally that they are willing to die for what they believe." But he wanted that devotion directed toward Chairman Mao. "We will change you," he promised and left. She was spared, but she never saw the rest of her family again.

The story doesn't end there, however. For shortly thereafter, that little girl fled to Hong Kong and was taken in. Later she entered the Lutheran seminary there and today she is a pastor of the Hong Kong Lutheran Church, serving the needs of countless souls. She prays for the day when she will be allowed to return to her village and minister to her people there and perhaps even to that Red Guard lieutenant who spared her but murdered her family.

She was able to endure, to overcome that tragedy in her life, because she knew the Good Shepherd.

27. Just When You Think You Know the Answer

Illustration

David Busic

The story is told about a pastor who enjoyed telling stories to the children. He'd bring all the children to the front of the sanctuary, they would sit on the floor, and he would tell them a story. One day he said: "Boys and girls, I want to tell you a story about someone who likes to live in the woods, but sometimes we can see him in our yards. He has a big bushy tail, and likes to eat nuts. Anybody have any idea what I'm talking about?"

No takers.

He said: "I'm talking about a creature that lives in the woods, sometimes in our yards, big bushy tail, eats nuts, likes to climb trees, jumps from tree to tree now, does anybody know what I'm talking about?"

One kid raised his hand to take him out of his misery. The pastor said: "Do you know what I'm thinking about?"

The kid said: "Yeah. I know the answer should be Jesus, but it sounds like a squirrel to me."

That's a little of how it is with the Gospel of John. Just when you think you know what the answer should be, a different meaning presents itself. As you read through John, you find that it is full of double meanings and multi-layered levels. It's very different than the other three gospels. I heard one pastor say: "If Matthew, Mark, and Luke are Rembrandts . . . John is a Picasso!" That is because they have a different purpose.

John's purpose was to prove Jesus was the Messiah sent from God. But he used symbolism and metaphors to communicate that message. The symbol John employs here is that of a shepherd with his flock.

28. Other Voices

Illustration

John M. Braaten

The call of our Lord is "hidden" in a whole chorus of worldly voices which beckon us. Other would-be shepherds seek to tempt us away from the Good Shepherd, the joy of his forgiveness and the security of his love. And when we are weak and confused we may fall victim to the enticements of other gods.

An American tourist traveling in the Mid East came upon several shepherds whose flocks had intermingled while drinking water from a brook. After an exchange of greetings, one of the shepherds turned toward the sheep and called out, "Manah. Manah. Manah." (Manah means "follow me" in Arabic.) Immediately his sheep separated themselves from the rest and followed him.

Then one of the two remaining shepherds called out, "Manah. Manah." and his sheep left the common flock to follow him. The traveler then said to the third shepherd, "I would like to try that. Let me put on your cloak and turban and see if I can get the rest of the sheep to follow me."

The shepherd smiled knowingly as the traveler wrapped himself in the cloak, put the turban on his head and called out, "Manah. Manah." The sheep did not respond to the stranger's voice. Not one of them moved toward him. "Will the sheep ever follow someone other than you?" The traveler asked.

"Oh yes," the shepherd replied, "sometimes a sheep gets sick, and then it will follow anyone."

We have seen it, haven't we? People, young and old, who are "sick." Battered by the storms of life and distracted by voices urging them to go this way and that, they have lost their bearings and they don't know where they are or where they are going. That can be more than a little frightening; it leads to despair, to hopelessness. And when someone is "sick" they will follow anyone who will promise a moment of happiness, a brief feeling of peace or forgetfulness, a sense that they are someone.

But the call of Jesus the Good Shepherd is, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." There is no better way, no greater truth, no happier life. Our Lord reaches out to us in love that we might follow him.

29. Do You Know My Business?

Illustration

Keith Wagner

A shepherd was herding his flocks in a remote pasture when suddenly a brand new Jeep Cherokee advanced towards him out of a dust cloud. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and a YSL tie, leans out of the window and asks: "If I can tell you exactly how many sheep you have in your flock, will you give me one?"

The shepherd looks at the yuppie, then at his peacefully grazing flock and answers, "Sure!" The yuppie parks the car, whips out his notebook, connects it to a cell phone, surfs to a NASA page where he calls up a GPS navigation system, scans the area and opens a database and some 60 spreadsheets with complex formulas. Finally, he prints a 150-page report on a miniature printer, turns to our shepherd and says: "You have exactly 1586 sheep!" "That's correct. As agreed, you can take one of the sheep," says the shepherd. He watches the young man make a selection and bundle it into his Cherokee.

As the car starts to pull away, he calls out: "If I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me my sheep back?" "Okay, why not?" answers the young man, stopping the car. "You are a consultant" says the shepherd. "That's correct," says the yuppie. "How did you guess?"

"Easy," answers the shepherd. "You turn up here without being asked. You want to be paid for information I already have. And you don't know anything about my business because you just took my dog."

30. Missing the Point

Illustration

Steve Jackson

Isn't it amazing how sometimes we get all tangled up with the words we speak and end up not being clear about what we're trying to say? One poster read, "I know you think you understand what I said, but what you don't understand is that what I said wasn't what I meant." Are you ever misunderstood? It happens everywhere--at work, at home, at school. Believe it or not, it even happens at church.

Every now and then, Abigail Van Buren in her column, Dear Abby, would run a list of church bulletin misprints and church sign bloopers that prove that we in the church occasionally have problems saying what we mean. Here were some of them:

The bulletin of a church in Iowa announced: The Low Self-Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday from 7 to 8:30p.m. Please use the back door.

Another church's bulletin carried this announcement: Due to the Pastor's illness, Wednesday's healing services will be discontinued until further notice.

During a service one preacher made this announcement: "This being Easter Sunday, we will now ask Mr. Vassilas to come forward and lay an egg on the altar.

Another church newsletter had this: At the evening service tonight, the topic will be "What is Hell?" Come early and hear our choir practice.

Not to pick on the choir, but an announcement in one church read: Eight new choir robes are currently needed, due to the addition of several new members and to the deterioration of some older ones.

In today's Scripture we find that even Jesus sometimes had trouble speaking clearly enough for people to get what he was saying. Did you notice? Jesus is trying to make a point using symbolic figures of speech that his listeners just don't get. The images he uses of sheepfolds, thieves, gates and gatekeepers were very familiar to these people, and yet, they didn't understand.

31. Calling the Sheep

Illustration

David J. Risendal

Today's Middle-east shepherds lives are not radically different from that of their first century counter-parts. They wander endlessly in search of fields where their sheep might graze. Every night, the sheep are led into a protected area - a "sheepfold." Sometimes, there are three or four or five flocks gathered by a number of shepherds into the same area. The shepherds take shifts staying up throughout the night, making sure that wolves or other wild animals aren't able to make their way into the protected area. In the morning, one might wonder if there is any hope of separating one flock from another. But it's a simple matter. Each shepherd calls the sheep and the sheep hear their shepherds' voice, and they immediately begin to move towards their shepherd. After a few minutes, all the sheep are separated into their own flocks, and the shepherds lead them away. Even in a crowd sheep know the voice of their own shepherd, and they follow it.

32. Someone to Call Us In

Illustration

Billy D. Strayhorn

Bishop Gerald Kennedy once told about a young girl who lived in an apartment in a big city, and after supper in the summer the children on the block gathered in the streets to play. But after a while one would say that she had to go home because her mother told her to be in before eight o'clock. Or a father would whistle and a boy would have to leave. A mother would call and others would have to go. The girl said, "They would all go. It would get dark and I would be there all alone, waiting for my father or my mother to call me in. They never did."

How sad. There are children who don't know the voice of a caring parent, who never get called in or called home. They can do whatever they want as long as they don't get into any trouble or inconvenience the parents. When what they really want, what they really need is someone to care. Someone to call them by name, with love, not filled with derision, someone to reach out and let them know they matter.

33. Called by Many Voices

Illustration

John H. Pavelko

Now if I had to nominate one animal to represent the word mediocre, a sheep would easily be in the top five. Sheep are not independent. They cannot defend themselves like cattle. They are not strong, creative, brave nor will they initiate. They cannot even work up a good stampede. Normally, they just sort of meander. Also, sheep will not be driven, like cattle. They will scatter in a thousand different directions. This type of behavior did not earn the animal any respect on the open range so the ranchers assumed that the animal was dumb. However, a sheep is actually smarter than a cow.

So why does Jesus choose to use a sheep to represent his disciples? Even in ancient society, sheep and shepherds did not garner the respect and admiration of the rich and famous. They did not have a contest to see which shepherd would be the next "Israeli Idol." For us who do not live in an agrarian society, it is even harder to understand. I have never identified myself with a sheep. Popular artists write songs about soaring on the wings of eagles, not grazing with the lambs.

Sheep have one particularly admirable quality. They will follow their shepherd wherever he leads them. They have learned to know him and trust him. They are not easily distracted by another shepherd. Move three flocks into a field, place three shepherds at three strategic points and have each of them issue a call. The sheep will sort themselves. You will not need brands to recognize which sheep belongs to which shepherd. Every animal will only follow his/her shepherd.

The people of God have been placed in a very large field that is often called the world. Many voices are calling us to come and join them. The voice of materialism wants us to deny our faith in the supernatural and believe only in the physical world. The voice of consumerism calls us to fulfill our envy by overspending on vacations, cars, clothing and a home. The voice of entertainment wants to fill our lives with media driven flashes that grab our attention, isolate us from our family and friends and then leave us with nothing but an oversized bill.

34. I'm Not the Shepherd

Illustration

Keenan Kelsey

A pastor was taking a group of parishioners on a tour of the Holy Land. He had just read them the parable of the good shepherd and was explaining to them that, as they continued their tour, they would see shepherds on the hillsides just as in Jesus' day. He wanted to impress the group, so he told them what every good pastor tells his people about shepherds. He described how, in the Holy Land, shepherds always lead their sheep, always walking in front to face dangers, always protecting the sheep by going ahead of them. He barely got the last word out when, sure enough, they rounded a corner and saw a man and his sheep on the hillside. There was only one problem: the man wasn't leading the sheep as the good pastor had said. No, he was behind the sheep and seemed to be chasing them. The pastor turned red. Flabbergasted, he ran over to the fence and said, "I always thought shepherds in this region led their sheep out in front. And I told my people that a good shepherd never chases his sheep." The man replied, "That's absolutely true... you're absolutely right... but I'm not the shepherd, I'm the butcher!"

I am afraid that in this day and age we are all too familiar with the butcher, and not very familiar with the Good Shepherd.

35. Effective Leadership

Illustration

Tom Lacey

Once there was an ecumenical crusade that was being held in a large city. Every imaginable denomination was in attendance for this unprecedented event. One afternoon the gathering was in session when all of a sudden a secretary rushed in shouting, "The building's on fire! The building's on fire!" Confusion reigned as each church group came together and did what came natural:

The Methodists gathered in the corner to pray. The Baptists cried, "Where's the water?" The Quakers quietly praised God for the blessings that fire brings. The Lutherans posted a notice on the door declaring that the fire was evil. The Roman Catholics passed a plate to cover the damages. The Unitarians reasoned that the fire would burn itself out if just given the chance. The Congregationalists shouted, "Every man for himself." The Fundamentalists proclaimed, "It's the vengeance of God." The Episcopalians formed a procession and marched out. The Christian Scientists concluded that there was no real fire. The Presbyterians appointed a chairperson to appoint a committee to look into the matter and make a written report.

And the church secretary grabbed a fire extinguisher and put the fire out.

36. A Global Flock

Illustration

Staff

This is an older illustration, still useful, about the transition to Pope Francis which underscores the changing demographics of the church: As the conclave of Cardinals meet to begin the process of appointing a new pope, it forces us to acknowledge the changes that have swept through the world and certainly through the Catholic Church in the last century. Much has been written in the last few weeks about Pope John Paul II and his understanding of the media age and globalization. He understood the importance of traveling, of transmitting his image and message, and of reaching out to all corners of Earth. Most of the growth of Catholicism in recent decades has taken place outside of Europe. In the conclave held in 1903, 98% of the Cardinals were from Europe (61% from Italy alone) and only 2% were from North America. In the conclave to be held in April 2005, 117 Cardinals will be eligible to vote. 50% will be from Europe with a 17% share from Italy. The Cardinals from North America will make up 12% of the total. Notice how the rest of the Cardinals cover the entire globe with 18% from Latin America, 9% from Asia, 9% from Africa, and 2% from Oceania.

This week, Jesus tells us that he is the gate for the sheep. Let us celebrate the global nature of His flock!

37. Only Obedience

Illustration

J. Scott Miller

High in the mountains of North Wales in a place called Llanymawddwy, lives a shepherd named John Jones with his wife Mari and his black and white dog Mack. I stood one misty summer morning in the window of their farmhouse watching John on horseback herding the sheep with Mack. A few cows were quietly chewing their cud in a nearby corner while perhaps a hundred sheep moved across the dewy meadow toward the pens where they were to be dipped. Mack, a champion Scottish collie, was in his glory. He came from a long line of working dogs, and he had sheep in his blood. This was what he was made for, this was what he had been trained to do. And it was a marvelous thing to see him circling to the right, circling to the left, barking, crouching, racing along, herding a stray sheep here, nipping at a stubborn one there, his eyes always glued to the sheep, his ears listening for the tiny metal whistle from his master, which I couldn't hear.

Mari took me to the pens to watch what John had to do there. When all the animals had been shut inside the gates, Mack tore around the outside of the pens and took up his position at the dipping trough, frantic with expectation, waiting for the chance to leap into action again. One by one John seized the rams by their curled horns and flung them into the antiseptic. They would struggle to climb out the side, and Mack would snarl and snap at their faces to force them back in. Just as they were about to climb up the ramp at the far end, John caught them by the horns with a wooden implement, spun them around, and held them ears, eyes, and nose submerged for a few seconds . . . .

When the rams had been dipped, John rode out again on his horse to herd the ewes which were in a different pasture. Again I watched with Mari as John and Mack went to work, the one in charge, the other obedient. Sometimes, tearing at top speed around the flock, Mack would jam on four-wheeled brakes, his eyes blazing but still on the sheep, his body tense and quivering, but obedient to the command to stop. What the shepherd saw the dog could not see the weak ewe that lagged behind, the one caught in a bush, the danger that lay ahead for the flock.

"Do the sheep have any idea what's happening?" I asked Mari.

"Not a clue!" she said.

"And how about Mack?" I'll never forget Mari's answer.

"The dog doesn't understand the pattern only obedience."

38. Traits of an Effective Leader

Illustration

Staff

What are the traits of an effective shepherd? Many traits could be listed. I like what Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "In order to be a leader a man must have followers. And to have followers, a man must have their confidence.

Hence the supreme quality of a leader is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, on a football field, in an army, or in an office. If a man's associates find him guilty of phoniness, if they find that he lacks forthright integrity, he will fail. His teachings and actions must square with each other. The first great need, therefore, is integrity and high purpose" (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bits & Pieces, September 15, 1994, p. 4).

Looking through several books and quotes about effective leadership I came up with a list of traits. These three were present in most of the lists:

Courage - Leaders expressed ideas to help others improve, in spite of personal risk or opposition.
Non-conformity - Simply swimming with the tide leaves you nowhere.
Foresight - The ability to look ahead and see what's coming…

39. The Good Shepherd - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

It is small wonder that the image of the shepherd was frequently upon the lips of the savior. It was a part of his heritage and culture. Abraham, the father of the nation, was the keeper of great flocks. Moses was tending the flocks of his father-in-law, Jethro, when God called him into a special service. David was a shepherd boy called in from the fields to be the King of Israel.

The imagery of the shepherd was also imprinted upon the literature of the day. The 23rd Psalm is frequently referred to as the shepherd psalm. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures. He leadeth me beside still waters."

When Isaiah spoke of the coming of the Messiah he worded it by saying: "He will feed his flock like a shepherd! He will gather his lambs into his arms." Yes, the tradition of the shepherd was very much a part of the heritage of Christ.

This picture comes more clearly into focus in the New Testament. Jesus once told a story about a shepherd who had 100 sheep, but one of them went astray. In our way of thinking a 99% return on our investment would be most desirable, but not this shepherd. He left the 99 to go in search of that one lost sheep. Later, when Jesus was speaking to a great throng of people, Mark tells us that he had compassion upon them because they were "as sheep without a shepherd."

Throughout the Judeo-Christian faith, then, the image of the shepherd has been stamped upon our thinking. In our scripture text for this morning Jesus again taps into this imagery when he refers to himself as the good shepherd. For a few moments this morning, I would like for us to examine together what he had in mind when he described himself as the Good Shepherd.

1. First, we have a shepherd that is a genuine shepherd.
2. Second, I think that the Good Shepherd knows his sheep.
3. Third, the Good Shepherd also includes other sheep.
4. Fourth, the shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.

40. A Shepherd to Lead Us - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

What I want to deal with is leadership. People are saying in Boston, Mass, Palm Beach, Florida, and towns throughout our country that there must be something wrong with the church. Why has the religious leadership failed?

Now let us travel 3000 miles to Israel. In towns very familiar to us because they are biblical towns there is a war going on in the streets. The two sides are deeply religious and yet they are at each other's throats. Even the children there are abused and used as human bombs.

People are saying in Palestine, Jerusalem, Kabul, and in towns all over the east that something is wrong. Why has the religious leadership failed?

Leadership. We all want good leadership. Good shepherds to lead us in and out of green pasture. We vote hoping to elect it, we apply for jobs hoping to work for it, and we go to school hoping to be educated by it. But we do not always find it. The trust we place in our leaders can be broken. So what are we to do? John 10 holds the answer.

Let us ask three questions and see how Jesus answers them.

1. What are the needs of the sheep?
2. What are the traits of a bad shepherd?
3. What are the traits of a good shepherd?

41. When We Fail to Listen

Illustration

Brett Blair

A certain public school superintendent passed down a verbal set of instructions to his assistant concerning the appearance of Halley's Comet a few years back. The superintendent said:

Next Thursday at 10:30 a.m., Halley's Comet will appear over this area. This is an event that occurs only once every 75 years. Call the school principals and have them assemble their teachers and classes on their athletic fields, and explain the phenomena to them. If it rains, then cancel the day's observation and have the classes meet in the auditorium to see a film about the Comet.

The assistant superintendent telephoned the school principals with this message: By order of the superintendent of schools, next Thursday Halley's Comet will appear over your athletic field at 10:30 a.m. If it rains, then cancel the day's classes and report to the auditorium with your teachers and students, where you will be shown films, a phenomenal event which occurs only once every 75 years.

The principals told their teachers the following: By order of the phenomenal superintendent of schools, at 10:30 a.m. next Thursday, Halley's Comet will appear in the auditorium. In case of rain over the athletic field, the superintendent will give another order—something which occurs only once in every 75 years.

The teachers then told their students: Next Thursday at 10:30 a.m., the superintendent of schools will appear in our school auditorium with Halley's Comet—something which occurs every 75 years. If it rains, the superintendent will cancel the Comet and will order us out on our phenomenal athletic field.

By the time the message was taken home to parents by the students and it sounded like this: When it rains next Thursday at 10:30 a.m. over the school's athletic field, the phenomenal 75 year-old superintendent of schools will cancel all classes, and appear before the student body in the auditorium, accompanied by Bill Haley and the Comets.

When we fail to listen, we misinterpret or modify what we have heard. It is then that chaos and confusion come in. We practice selective listening and hear only what we want to hear! Good Shepherds listen carefully, attentively, and intentionally to the voice of the Master Shepherd. In listening to Jesus, we hear the instruction, guidance, and sensitivity we need in relating to members of our flock.

42. A Familiar Voice

Illustration

Michael P. Green

During World War I, it is said that some Turkish soldiers tried to steal a flock of sheep from a hillside near Jerusalem. The shepherd, who had been sleeping, suddenly awakened to see his sheep being driven off on the other side of the ravine. He could not hope to recapture his flock by force single-handedly, but suddenly he had a thought. Standing up on his side of the ravine, he put his hands to his mouth and gave his own peculiar call, which he used each day to gather his sheep to him. The sheep heard the familiar sound. For a moment they listened and then, hearing it again, they turned and rushed down one side of the ravine and up the other toward their shepherd. It was quite impossible for the soldiers to stop the animals. The shepherd was away with them to a place of safety before the soldiers could make up their minds to pursue them—and all because his sheep knew their master’s voice.

43. The Government is My Shepherd

Illustration

Michael P. Green

The following parody was written by two Englishmen after converting to Christianity from Communism.

The Socialist’s 23rd Psalm

The Government is my shepherd,
Therefore, I need not work.
It allows me to lie down on a good job;
It leads me beside still factories.
It destroys my initiative;
It leads me in the path of a parasite for politics’ sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficit spending,
I fear no evil; for the Government is with me.
It preparest an economic Utopia for me;
By appropriating the earnings of my own grandchildren.
It fills my head with false security;
My inefficiency runneth over.
Surely the Government should care for me all the days of my life;
And I shall live in a fool’s paradise, forever.

44. True Abundant Life

Illustration

King Duncan

One day a man stopped in a convenience store to get a newspaper. He noticed that the owner of the store had tears in his eyes and kept looking out the window. He asked what was going on.

The store owner said, "Do you see that bus bench over there? There's a woman who comes there every day around this time. She sits there for about an hour, knitting and waiting. Buses come and go, but she never gets on one and no one ever gets off for her to meet. The other day, I carried her a cup of coffee and sat with her for a while.

"Her only son lives a long way away. She last saw him two years ago, when he boarded one of the buses right there. He is married now, and she has never met her daughter‑in‑law or seen their new child. She told me, ‘It helps to come here and wait. I pray for them as I knit little things for the baby, and I imagine them in their tiny apartment, saving money to come home. I can't wait to see them.'"

The reason the owner was looking out the window at that particular moment was that the three of them the son, his wife and their small child were just getting off the bus. The look on the woman's face when this small family fell into her arms was one of pure joy. And this joy only increased when she looked into the face of her grandchild for the first time. The store owner commented, "I'll never forget that look as long as I live."

The next day the same man returned to the convenience store. The owner was again behind the counter. Before the store owner could say or do anything, the customer said, "You sent her son the money for the bus tickets, didn't you?"

The store owner looked back with eyes full of love and a smile and replied, "Yes, I sent the money." Then he repeated his statement from the day before, "I'll never forget that look as long as I live." This man had discovered a measure of the abundant life.

45. A Thankless Job

Illustration

King Duncan

Any job where there is not much recognition or you are taken for granted can seem like a thankless job. Author Ruth Harms Calkin stated it well:

You know, Lord, how I serve You
With great emotional fervor
In the limelight.
You know how eagerly I speak for You
At a women's club;
You know how I effervesce when I promote
A fellowship group.
You know my genuine enthusiasm
At a Bible study.

But how would I react, I wonder
If You pointed to a basin of water
And asked me to wash the callused feet
Of a bent and wrinkled old woman
Day after day
Month after month,
In a room where nobody saw
And nobody knew?

We know what she's talking about, don't we? Thankless jobs. Jobs without much of a payoff in money or recognition. Repetitive jobs, boring jobs, repulsive jobs.

Being a shepherd is a thankless job. It really is. Imagine dealing with dumb, smelly sheep all day. In Palestine, flocks of sheep are plentiful. They dot the countryside, clutter up highways, crowd the streets of towns and villages. The shepherd with his long staff walks in front of his flock and his sheep follow him. In fact, they crowd around so closely they hamper the shepherd's movement. Dumb, helpless sheep.

46. Hell: Ocean of Oatmeal

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

Wes Seeliger has given us a fresh definition of hell.

“Most people picture hell as a lake of fire, with the souls of the damned floating around, screaming in agony. But here is another picture...close your eyes. Visualize in your mind a large bowl of oatmeal. Cold oatmeal. With lots of lumps. Now picture the atlantic as an ocean of oatmeal. Put yourself in the middle of the oatmeal ocean a mile below the surface. Get the picture? That's hell.

"Hell is cold oatmeal. It is life without passion or desire. Hell is numbness, not pain. Hell is believing there is nothing worth getting excited about. Hell is a swamp of blandness."

Does that speak to you? It does to me. Hell: the deadness of a huge ocean of oatmeal in which we are caught. It may look like this: sad...wanting joy; despairing...looking for hope; anxious...needing courage; bereaved...hoping for sympathy; lonely...longing for friendship; bored...searching for meaning; hostile...needing love; guilty...desperate for forgiveness; dead...grasping for life.

Is there hope to escape such hells? Take courage -- there is!

Jesus provided the good news -- "I am come that you may have life and have it abundantly."

47. SHEPHERD

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Genesis 47:3 - "Pharaoh said to his brothers, ‘What is your occupation?’ And they said to Pharaoh, ‘Your servants are shepherds, as our fathers were.’ "

Luke 2:8 - "And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night."

This is one of the oldest and most important occupations among the ancient Hebrews. There were two types of shepherds: nomads who followed their flocks from one grazing area to another, and those who lived in villages. The shepherd protected his flock from the cold, robbers, and predatory animals. His only weapons were the staff and sling, although, later dogs were also used.

The shepherd wore a whole animal skin with the wool retained. He may also have worn an undertunic or outer cloak. A folded girdle was also worn in which was carried money or pebbles (for the sling and to draw the flocks’ attention). A veil that consisted of a yard-square piece of material folded into a triangle and held by a black ring of goat’s hair was also worn. He also usually had long hair and a beard.

Several days’ food supply was carried in a bag. The food consisted of bread, cheese, olives, and dried raisins. While the flock grazed, he could nap or play his reed pipe. The shepherd was very devoted to his flock and willing to give his life to save them.

During the summer, the shepherd slept outdoors. During bad weather, he slept in a tent or a special tower. Some shepherds gathered their flocks in caves or stone sheepfolds. To lead them, the shepherd walked ahead of the flock, not behind it. The flock was counted every morning and evening, and the shepherd cared for the sick animals, helped in lambing, and often carried weak lambs.

The Hebrew patriarchs were nomad-type shepherds, and, later, Moses and David were both shepherds. In the Talmud, the rabbis viewed shepherds as dishonest and uncouth because many grazed their flocks on the property of others. But we have before us the Good Shepherd, who cares for us as the shepherd cared for his sheep.

We spoke before of the herdsman, and we said that he lives today very much as before in the Near East, and the same comment that we made then about those who today raise sheep and goats would hold true here also.

48. Break A Leg

Illustration

Michael P. Green

Please see the note below this illustration.

A woman visiting in Switzerland came to a sheepfold on one of her daily walks. Venturing in, she saw the shepherd seated on the ground with his flock around him. Nearby, on a pile of straw lay a single sheep, which seemed to be suffering. Looking closely, the woman saw that its leg was broken.

Her sympathy went out to the suffering sheep, and she looked up inquiringly to the shepherd as she asked how it happened. “I broke it myself,” said the shepherd sadly and then explained. “Of all the sheep in my flock, this was the most wayward. It would not obey my voice and would not follow when I was leading the flock. On more than one occasion, it wandered to the edge of a perilous cliff. And not only was it disobedient itself, but it was leading other sheep astray.

“Based on my experience with this kind of sheep, I knew I had no choice, so I broke its leg. The next day I took food and it tried to bite me. After letting it lie alone for a couple of days, I went back and it not only eagerly took the food, but licked my hand and showed every sign of submission and affection.

“And now, let me say this. When this sheep is well, it will be the model sheep of my entire flock. No sheep will hear my voice so quickly nor follow so closely. Instead of leading the others away, it will be an example of devotion and obedience. In short, a complete change will come into the life of this wayward sheep. It will have learned obedience through its sufferings.”

Many times it is the same in human experience. Through our suffering, God may be seeking to teach us obedience and reliance on his care.

Note: There is no evidence that this was a practice among shepherds. See the following page for more information.

49. Knowing but Not Really Understanding

Illustration

A shepherd was tending his flock in a remote pasture when suddenly a brand-new Jeep Cherokee appeared out of a dust cloud, advanced toward him and stopped. The driver, a 20 something fellow wearing a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and a YSL tie, leaned out of the window and asked the shepherd, "If I can tell you exactly how many sheep you have in your flock, will you give me one?"

The shepherd looked at the young guy, then at his peacefully grazing flock, and calmly answered, "Sure."

The young man parked his car, whipped out his notebook computer, connected it to a cell phone, surfed to a NASA page on the Internet where he called up a GPS satellite navigation system, scanned the area, then opened up a database and some Excel spreadsheets with complex formulas.

He finally printed out a 150-page report on his hi-tech miniaturized printer, turned around to our shepherd and said, "You have here exactly 1,586 sheep!"

"Amazing! That's correct! Like I agreed, you can take one of my sheep," said the shepherd.

The shepherd watched the man make a selection and bundle it into his Cherokee. When he was finished the sheepherder said, "If I can tell you exactly what your political persuasion is, where you're from and who you work for, will you give me my sheep back?"

"Okay, why not," answered the young man.

"You're a Republican/Democrat from (name your city here) and you're working for (name here a local politician or your mayor)," said the shepherd.

"Wow! That's correct," said the young man. "How did you ever guess that?

"Easy," answered the shepherd. "Nobody called you, but you showed up here anyway. You want to be paid for providing a solution to a question I already knew the answer to. And you clearly don't know squat about what you're doing. Now ... can I have my dog back?"

50. I Am Sayings

Illustration

Brett Blair

There are seven "I Am" sayings in the gospel of John. I Am the true vine is the last of these sayings.

I am the bread of life - 6:35
I am the light of the world - 8:12 & 9:5
I am the gate for the sheep - 10:7,9
I am the good shepherd - 10:11,14
I am the resurrection and the life - 11:25
I am the way and the truth and the life - 14:6
I am the true vine - 15:1,5

Showing 1 to 50 of 144 results