Sermon and Worship Resources

Matthew 22:1-14 · The Parable of the Wedding Banquet

1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.

4 "Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'

5 "But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.

11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.

13 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

Is There Hope for the Hapless Wedding Guest?

Matthew 22:1-14

Sermon
by Darrick Acre

Strange parable. Great beginning; catastrophic ending. Yet I find myself drawn to the hapless wedding guest because nobody else is. The first sermon I ever heard in a Nazarene Church was when I was in high school. Pastor Roy Hoover preached on this wretched wedding guest. It so chilled me out that I didn’t go back for a year. I’ve never forgotten it. I’ve never heard one on it since! When preachers come to this miserable fellow, like the Jews of old meeting a leper on the road, they give him a wide berth. Luke, in relating this same parable, doesn’t even mention him. Passes over him in silence. I guess that is why I’m drawn to him, as I am to lost puppies and stray cats.

I am also drawn to this poor man because of the monumental embarrassment he suffered. Look at it: he hears the incredible invitation of the great king. Unlike those who spurned the gracious offer, he responds with enthusiasm and joy. He joins the multitudes of both ‘evil and good’ from the ‘highways and byways’ as they throng toward the king’s palace and file into the wedding hall. The lights are low. The music soft. Anticipation builds. Then the trumpets blow. The band strikes up. The spots blaze as the great king comes in. The banquet hall explodes with sustained applause, which quickly dies down as the king solemnly scrutinizes his guests. Suddenly his head snaps back. The music stops in mid-beat. All eyes turn to focus upon the object of the king’s obvious displeasure. Gasps of shock and whispers of disgust echo as spotlights zero in. Can’t believe it! No suit and tie! How did he get in? What nerve! What gross insensitivity! Disgusting!

I remember as if it were yesterday. Louie Shingler, distinguished lay-leader of Los Angeles First Church, where I was an associate at the time, picked me up on the steps of Fuller Seminary library in Pasadena where I had been studying, to take me out to lunch. It was summertime and my day off. He wheeled up in his Cadillac Eldorado.

I sensed I was in trouble when I noted that he was dressed in a dark, pin-striped suit. I was dressed in a short-sleeve, open-neck, knit golf shirt, faded, polyester slacks in which the PermaPress crease had become unPermed, wearing K-Mart blue-light special tennis shoes. I knew I was in trouble when instead of J.B.’s, or the Country Grill, he drove into the parking lot of the Pasadena University Club, the most prestigious, top-drawer country club in Southern California, where everybody who was anybody was a member. The tuxedoed maitre‘d, armed with gold-braided menus, greeted Louie by name and glared at me. We were led into a cavernous ballroom: domed ceiling, chandeliers, white tablecloths, crystal goblets, fine china, a dozen pieces of silverware, a harpist. I glanced about. Everyone in that place was dressed to the nines; men in dark suits, power ties with matching kerchiefs; women in long formal dresses or pantsuits according to high fashion of the time. Here I was: knit golf shirt, naked arms, faded, unPermed, polyester slacks, K-Mart blue-light special tennis shoes.

To make matters worse, Louie Shingler was President-elect of the Pasadena Tournament of Roses that year. At least 6,000 guests—or so it seemed to me—stopped by our table. Of course, gracious host that he was, Mr. Shingler dutifully introduced me, not as “our associate pastor” but as “my pastor!” Decorum dictated that I scoot my chair back and stand to shake their hands, thus giving them a frontal close-up of my open-neck, knit golf shirt, naked arms, faded, unpermed polyester slacks, and K-Mart tennis shoes. If I could have found a crack in the polished hardwood floor one centimeter wide, I could easily have slid through it without touching either side. Do you wonder that my heart goes out to this poor man?

I am also drawn to this man because of the abuse he has suffered at the hands of every biblical commentator I’ve read. I’ve read a few. Without exception, they rush him to judgment as the baddest of bad guys, in his filthy rags, stinking up the place. Some assume he was a wicked wretch who climbed in by a window, desecrating the sanctity of the feast. Others a phony Christian whose hypocritical profession is stripped away under the white-hot glare of God’s holiness. Or a rebel who arrogantly refuses the king’s offer of appropriate wedding garments. For holiness commentators, he is the archetype of one who has been saved but not entirely sanctified, thus lacking that “holiness without which no man shall see the Lord.”

Why are biblical scholars so negative about him? Not knowing the facts they, like us, invent a worst-case scenario. They argue backwards from horrible ending to just cause. After all, in the light of his terrible fate, surely this man must have done something unspeakably wicked. The parable, however, says nothing of the sort. In fact it says nothing about this man, good or bad, other than that he failed to be wearing proper wedding attire. Perhaps he wasn’t aware of the dress code, even as I was not for Monday’s lunch with Louie Shingler. Perhaps he was too poor to buy a new suit. Perhaps he was a recent immigrant who wore the finest dress of his country, not realizing how inappropriate it would be in this land. Even if he was a wretched tramp in filthy rags, I notice in v. 10 that the slaves gathered together all they found, both evil and good. So I would presume that whatever measures of grace clothed the others with robes of righteousness would have been given to him as well. Many commentators note that Eastern kings and wealthy potentates provided wedding garments for their guests which, obviously, he refused to wear. That speculation is, however, not only far-fetched, but without one scintilla of historical support.

There’s something else that troubles me about the way commentators trash this poor man. They automatically assume the king in this parable is God. Well, if it is, He bears no resemblance whatsoever to the God who, after the Fall, comes gently walking in the garden, not with the flaming sword of judgment but with the plaintive cry of a wounded lover, “Adam, Eve, where art thou?” Who not only graciously forgives before they even ask, but himself clothes their nakedness. This king bears no relationship to the father whose heart so yearns for his lost son that he is out at the crack of dawn scanning the distant horizon; who when he sees that wastrel yet miles from home flies down the mountain, runs across the plains, scoops him up in his mighty arms, escorts him home and shouts, “Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this son of mine was dead, and has come to live again; he was lost, and has been found.”

So if not the God of Jesus, then who is this king? And who is this hapless man? I have been pondering that for months. I wish I could tell you that it was the insights of rhetorical criticism applied to biblical hermeneutics, which invite us to crawl into the narrative and view it from points of view other than that of the narrator, but it was not. Rather it was a book I bought recently called the “Magic Eye.” It is full of fascinating, computer-generated pictures called “stereograms.” What you see, on the surface, are colorful but repetitive patterns: something appropriate for wallpaper perhaps but hardly for framing and hanging on a wall. But if you stare at the picture long enough and force yourself to look beyond the surface into the depths, all of a sudden a miracle occurs. That flat graphic comes alive as a dynamic, moving, three-dimensional portrait. Striking images, previously hidden, come breathtakingly into view. A hummingbird in one. A throbbing heart in another. Dolphins frolicking in the ocean. None of which is visible when you first look at it.

What would happen, I asked myself, if I applied a stereographic technique to this chilling parable and stared at it in depth? I read it over and over, pondered it on my early morning walks, and during odd hours of the day. All of a sudden, I saw it! I broke through the surface. What did I see?

I saw me! I am the one who has heard the king’s gracious call, who has responded with eagerness and joy, who has come into the king’s hall only to discover with a shock of shame, that I’m not dressed right. Don’t have the right stuff. Not measuring up! An unsightly spectacle. An embarrassment to my friends, to myself, and to God! And when called to account, I am speechless!

Several months ago I raced up the escalator at the Boise Airport and dashed into the men’s restroom only to be instantly confused. It didn’t look right. What did they do with the . . .? Just then a young woman came out of one of the stalls, looked at me somewhat startled, and then said cheerfully, “Good morning, Dr. Cowles, are you lost?” One of my former students! Oh no! Instantly I pictured myself, standing with head bowed, faced flushed, ears burning, before the board of Regents at Northwest Nazarene College, before the board of General Superintendents, before the General Assembly, trying to explain. I live with the subliminal fear of embarrassing myself. I battle terrible nightmares of being called upon to preach only to discover I have nothing to say. A reoccurring Saturday night dream is standing in my office, ready to begin the service. I run through my checklist: I’ve got my glasses on, my Bible in hand, my sermon in my pocket, my order of worship. But alas, I don’t have any pants on!

The thought of being exposed fills me with total panic! Raw terror! Drives me right to the edge! And in those excruciatingly painful passages where I have, in fact, made a fool of myself, or been judged as suspect, or a heretic, or incompetent; when I have been criticized, maligned, voted against, and driven out, I not only feel cast out by people, but by God! I project that condemnation, that rejection, upon God! God is angry! God is incensed! Too holy to abide a failure like me! Which is precisely what is going on in this parable. What we have here is not so much a description of God as He is, but God as He is perceived by the one who suddenly finds himself on the outside looking in! I’ve been there! Haven’t you? There is no pain to compare.

That’s why my heart goes out to this poor man, the quintessential misfit. The one who doesn’t have the right color of skin. Or didn’t go to the right schools. Or, most tragically, is not of the right gender. As I kept staring at this parable and my deep vision skills developed, I became aware that something is missing in this parable. Or, more accurately, someone is missing. The king’s son! The guests have gathered. The house is full. The king has made his grand entrance, but there is no sign of the son! Come to think of it, how can the good shepherd enjoy the party with the 99 or 99 million who are safely in the fold, while there is one poor lamb who is not?

Where is Jesus? I’ll tell you where He is: He is here! With all of us who are naked, exposed, not having the right stuff. Beside those of us who have felt the stabbing pain of discrimination, of embarrassment, of being made a spectacle: someone to be gossiped about, laughed at, scorned. To all of us who are shunned, uninvited, unwelcome, unappreciated, unwanted, Jesus understands.

He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon him,

Nor appearance that we should be attracted to him.

He was despised and forsaken of men,

A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;

One from whom men hide their face (Isaiah 53:4-5).

Where is Jesus? He’s out seeking the shamed, wounded, and broken rejects. With open arms He says to you and me this morning, “Come unto me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest!” “He that comes unto me I will in no wise cast out!”

I did something else to this parable: I stepped back and looked at the context with a wide-angle lens. Jesus spoke it during the last week of His life, under the looming shadow of the cross. The triumphal procession has fizzled. The cleansing of the temple has enraged the religious authorities. Jesus’ enemies are in the full heat of conspiracy. Immediately preceding this parable is another Jesus told about a landowner who planted a vineyard, let it out to tenants, and sent servants to receive his share of the produce. They beat some and killed others. Finally he sent his son, sure that they would respect him. Not so. Rather, “They said among themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and seize his inheritance.’ And they took him, and threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him.”

All of a sudden I saw it: Who is this unfortunate wretch without proper wedding attire? Who was stripped naked of every vestige of orthodoxy, of honor, of legitimacy by both the religious and political establishment? Who was arrested while at prayer, dragged off in chains, hauled before the chief priests, put on trial before the official Sanhedrin—representatives of an austere and authoritarian God? Who literally stood before the great king? King Herod no less, without proper attire? And who, when questioned, answered not a word? Who heard those chilling words uttered by the duly established and legitimate authorities?

Bind this messianic imposter hand and foot. Slap his face. Flog his back. Smash those thorns deep into his skull. Drag him through the streets. Cast him outside the holy city. Spit in his eye. Split his hands and feet. Pierce his side. Crucify him! Crucify him! Crucify him! And who cried out in unspeakable agony, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” He came unto his own, and his own said, “Damn his soul to hell!”

And to hell he went! Rejected by humanity and abandoned by God, Jesus descended into hell. What did He do there? What else could He do but what He had always done: He preached to the spirits in prison. Preached good news! Good news that even in hell they were not forgotten of God! Good news of grace, mercy, and deliverance! Now I ask you: isn’t that just like Jesus? Why did Jesus forego the comfort and safety of being transported instantly in the presence of His father? Peter says he did it “in order that He might bring us to God!” Hallelujah! But the story does not end there. Peter goes on to declare, “Having been put to death in the flesh, he has been made alive in the spirit” (I Peter 3:18). Made alive in the Spirit? Well I guess! Up from the grave he arose,

With a mighty triumph o’er his foes,

He arise a victor o’er the dark domain,

And he lives forever with his saints to reign.

He arose . . . Hallelujah, Christ arose!”

I thought I had died and gone to heaven when my pastor—my friend, my model, my hero—upon hearing that I didn’t have a place to stay for the summer between my freshman and sophomore years in college, invited me to live with his family. They fixed a corner for me in the garage, with a cot and a small chest of drawers. I worked 12 to 16 hours a day, but always tried to eat the evening meal with the family! I loved it!

“C. S., I need to talk to you,” he announced rather ominously one night after dinner. We moved into the unlit living room. The sun had set. He sat in the chair with its back to the picture-window, his face shrouded in darkness, back-lit by twilight. Sensing trouble I slouched down in the couch. Then he started in on me. Scolded me for leaving my bed unmade when I left for work early in the morning, for shoes left strewn around which could cause someone to trip and break their neck, and a dozen or so other irritations.

He continued, “C. S., you’ve said that God has called you to preach. I can tell you that you’ve got very large rocks in your head if you ever think you can make it as a preacher! Forget it! You have neither the gifts nor the grace. Furthermore, you’ve testified to being entirely sanctified. Well I’ve been watching you closely and I can assure you that you not only don’t have the experience but you don’t have a clue. In fact, I can’t see much evidence that you are even a Christian! So, what do you have to say for yourself?” What did I have to say? What could I say? A fully-loaded cement truck driven over my stomach could not have hurt worse!

Early the next morning, long before the sun came up, I wrote a note thanking my hosts for their hospitality, slipped it into an envelope, along with the money I owed for board and room, slid it under the kitchen door, packed everything I owned into two cardboard boxes, strapped them on the back of my Cushman scooter, lifted up the garage door, and drove out into the night—never to return to that house, never to return to that church or any church of that denomination—except for my uncle’s funeral; I would, in all likelihood, have kept right on driving into the deep darkness of despair, unbelief, and the outer darkness of hell.

Except for Jesus, who caught up with me in the night. I first became aware of Him when He gently put His arm around me. Starlight refracted from tiny, glistening diamonds on His cheeks. It was tears. Tears to match my tears. He whispered in my ear, this great Jesus did, “The table is set. The food is prepared. A place has been reserved for you. I want you to go back to the feast.”

“But,” I protested, “the great king.” Jesus interrupted and said, “The great King loves you! He was alarmed when you fled from His presence. He sent me to seek you out and bring you back. The King says that it wouldn’t be a party without you there.”

“But,” I protested once again, “I can’t go in! Look! No proper suit of clothes. All I have are these rags!”

“What rags?” Jesus asked. I looked down. I couldn’t believe it! I was clothed in a gleaming, pure wedding garment, shining like the sun in full strength. I looked at Jesus. Guess what He was wearing? You’ve got it: my knit golf shirt, faded, unPermed, polyester slacks, and my K-Mart blue-light special sneakers. As I stood there, once again speechless in amazement, He bid me farewell and with a wave of His hand hurried on down the darkening path, looking for other rejects. He stopped, turned, and called back, “My Father’s expecting you. The celebration cannot start until you get there. So, what are you waiting for?”

Good question: What are we waiting for?

Preacher, Prepare the Way, by Darrick Acre

Overview and Insights · The Parable of the Wedding Banquet (22:1–14)

The third parable compares the kingdom of heaven to a wedding banquet prepared by a king for his son. The king’s servants tell the invited guests the banquet is ready, but they all make lame excuses, refuse to attend, and even kill his servants (22:3–6). The king is insulted and enraged. He sends his army to judge the murderers and destroy their city, a symbol of the coming judgment of the Jewish lea…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Matthew 22:1-14 · The Parable of the Wedding Banquet

13 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

Commentary · Parables of Responsibility

Jesus first addresses the Jerusalem leaders with three parables that indict them for abdicating their leadership role in guiding Israel in righteousness (21:32). In the parable of the two sons (21:28–32), Jesus contrasts the son who, though initially disobedient, repents (the Greek term is rendered variously as “changed his mind” and “repent” in 21:29 and 32) and obeys his father with the son who says he will obey but does not. In regard to believing John the Baptist’s message, the tax collectors and prostitutes are like the first son, the chief priests and elders like the second (21:31–32). According to Jesus, the wayward of Israel enter God’s kingdom ahead of its leaders, because the latter “did not repent and believe [John]” (21:32).

This harsh indictment leads into a parable of judgment on the same leaders (21:33–46). Jesus draws on the Old Testament portrayal of Israel as a vineyard (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7) and tells a story of a vineyard entrusted by a landowner to local tenants. When he sends his servants to collect the fruit, the tenants beat or kill them. Even when he sends his son, they do the same. The judgment on the tenants is the vineyard’s removal from them and its transfer to other tenants (21:41). Jesus cites Psalm 118:22–23 to indicate God’s vindication of the rejected one (cf. 28:18) and declares that God’s kingdom will be taken away from Israel’s current leaders and given “to a people who will produce its fruit” (21:43; with the singular noun “a people” likely referring to faithful Jews and Gentiles). The judgment of this parable and the previous one is aimed specifically at the Jewish leaders, who have failed to lead and care for the Jewish people as they ought. Their failure is seen precisely in their rejection of both John and Jesus (the son of the parable). The chief priests and Pharisees know that Jesus has referred to them in these two parables (21:45), so they seek to arrest him secretly (21:46).

The third parable Matthew includes (22:1–14) is likely also intended for the Jewish leadership, though the ending is not specific to them as at 21:31–32, 45. God’s kingdom is likened to a wedding banquet held by a king for his son. Those invited refuse to come, even killing the king’s servants who bring the invitation. In response, the king sends his army to destroy these murderers and burn their city (with a possible reference to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70; see “Author, Date, and Audience” in the introduction). Since the original guests refuse the king’s invitation, he opens the banquet to anyone his servants can find, “the bad as well as the good” (22:10; cf. 13:40–43, 49–50). Jesus’s parable up to this point emphasizes the affront of refusing God’s kingdom invitation and the judgment that will fall on those who reject that invitation, as the Jewish leadership has been doing. The final scene of the parable strikes closer to home. A man who is at the banquet is discovered without the proper wedding garments and thrown out. This scene warns those who have responded to the kingdom invitation (offered by Jesus) of judgment if they do not bear fruit (with “weeping and gnashing of teeth” being a common image for judgment in Matthew; cf. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 24:51; 25:30). Though the wedding garment is an ambiguous image, in context it seems best interpreted along an ethical line, since both good and bad enter the parable’s banquet (22:10) and since the previous two parables emphasize ethical behavior (21:32, 43; for similar warnings to insiders, cf. 7:21–23; 16:27).

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

Big Idea: When his authority is questioned by the Jerusalem leaders, Jesus, the faithful Son of God, tells three parables contrasting those who are faithful and do God’s will (even supposed sinners) and those who disbelieve and disobey (the Jerusalem leaders).

Understanding the Text

Two symbolic actions of Jesus—his entry as king into Jerusalem and his temple critique (21:1–22)—provoke a contest of authority with the chief priests and Jewish elders (21:23–27). Jesus refuses to answer their question about the source of his authority directly; instead, he tells three parables that provide an implicit claim of his messianic identity and implicate the Jewish leaders in their rejection of his identity and authority (21:28–22:14). In their rejection, Jesus contrasts them to those who have believed his message (and John’s): tax collectors and prostitutes (21:31–32; cf. 9:9–13) and people who produce fruit (21:43; cf. 3:8; 7:15–20; 12:33). It is at this point in Matthew’s story that the Jerusalem leaders begin the final plot to arrest and execute Jesus (21:46; see 26:3–4).

Interpretive Insights

21:23 By what authority are you doing these things? The challenge issued by the chief priests and elders sets the stage for the rest of chapters 21–22. The question of authority is at the heart of the conflict between Jesus and various groups of Jewish leaders that challenge him. But Jesus will confound them and evade their “traps” (22:15, 23, 34). His wisdom amazes those listening (22:22, 33), and his final riddle silences their interrogations (22:46). We can outline this as follows:

A. Jesus’ authority is challenged by chief priests and elders (21:23–27).

B. Jesus tells three parables to challenge the Jewish leaders: they will miss out on the kingdom because they reject him (21:28–22:14).

C. Pharisees and Herodians test Jesus on the imperial tax (22:15–22).

D. Sadducees test Jesus on resurrection (22:23–33).

E. Pharisees test Jesus on Torah (22:34–40).

F. Jesus confounds the Jewish leaders with a riddle (22:41–46).

21:25 John’s baptism—where did it come from? Wisely, Jesus counters with a question not directly about his own authority (21:23) but about the origin (i.e., authority) of John’s baptism. Jesus is asking if the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem recognized that John’s baptizing ministry was authorized by God. By focusing his question on John, Jesus situates the contest between the crowds and the leaders, since the crowds honor the martyred John as a prophet (21:26).

21:26 we are afraid of the people. The chief priests and elders betray a fear of the crowds that causes them to back down from their confrontation with Jesus. Inappropriate fear has been shown to be a trait of other leaders in Matthew. Parallel to 21:26, Herod fears the people’s reaction (if he kills John) because they consider John to be a prophet (14:5). And after Jesus tells a parable indicting the Jewish leadership for neglecting care for Israel, the chief priests and Pharisees want to arrest him, but their fear of the crowds (who hold Jesus to be a prophet) keeps them from doing this immediately (21:46).

21:28 There was a man who had two sons. The parable of the two sons highlights the importance of responding to Jesus in covenant loyalty by juxtaposing a son who obeys his father after saying he will not and a son who does not obey in spite of saying he will. Jesus makes the correspondences clear (21:31–32): the Jewish leaders are like the son who, in the end, does not obey, and tax collectors and prostitutes are like the obedient son. It is the latter’s proper response of repentance and faith to John’s call to righteousness that constitutes and produces their obedience.

21:31 The first. The parable’s thrust is about the importance of action, although not necessarily in contrast to words—as if the point were that the promise made is unimportant (cf. 5:33–37; 12:36–37). Some Greek manuscripts, instead of reading “the first” here, have the word eschatos (“the last”; or deuteros [“the second”]). This reading makes little sense for the parable’s purpose and also contravenes Matthew’s strong emphasis on doing God’s will (in this section, see 21:43; 22:11–12).

tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. The affront of Jesus’ parable is that those who are scorned and despised for their moral compromise will enter the kingdom “ahead of” (i.e., instead of [see 23:13]) those considered Israel’s leaders.

21:33 There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. Any Jewish reader from Matthew’s world would recognize the parable’s allusion to Israel. In Isaiah 5:1–7 Israel is compared to a vineyard belonging to Yahweh that does not produce good fruit. In Jesus’ parable the Jewish leaders correspond to the tenants who mistreat the landowner’s servants and son. This connection becomes clear at the end of the parable (21:45).

21:37–39 Last of all, he sent his son to them . . . they . . . killed him. The referent for the landowner’s son is Jesus himself, who will also be the “son” referent in the subsequent parable of the wedding banquet (22:1–14) as well as in the climactic riddle that Jesus tells (22:41–42).

21:42 The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. Jesus draws on Psalm 118 to explain the rejection that he experiences from the temple authorities. Implicitly, Jesus compares himself to the temple cornerstone, placing himself at the center of Jewish eschatological hopes (21:44).

21:43 the kingdom of God will be . . . given to a people who will produce its fruit. Although there is some debate about whether this judgment by Jesus indicts all of Israel, the focus of the parable (on tenants who mismanage the vineyard [21:41]) and the response of the leaders who hear the parable (“they knew he was talking about them” [21:45]) argue for a narrower referent. The kingdom will be given to a “people” (ethnos) who will produce fruit, in contrast to the Jewish leaders. The fact that ethnos is used here does not necessarily refer to Gentiles rather than Jews, since ethnos can denote a people (or nation) “united by kinship, culture, and common traditions” (BDAG 276).

21:46 They looked for a way to arrest him. Jesus has been perceived as a threat from the time of his Galilean ministry (12:14), and now the Jerusalem leaders seek a way to arrest Jesus (also 26:3–5). Presumably, they are looking for particular evidence to level a charge against him. In the end, they will accuse him of blasphemy (26:65) and bring him to Pilate as a royal pretender (27:11).

22:2 a king who prepared a wedding banquet. This parable compares the kingdom to a banquet, with invitations offered but rejected by expected guests (22:5). Given that the previous two parables have focused on the Jerusalem leaders’ rejection of Jesus, the reader will be anticipating that this third (final) parable will also indict them. Although this parable seems more general, there are clues that it too addresses the leaders: (1) they are Jesus’ audience as he tells the parable; (2) the extreme action of the first to be invited (they mistreat and kill those sent with the invitation) fits the previous parable’s indictment of the Jewish leaders (21:35–39); and (3) the reference to the burning of “their city” (22:7) may evoke for Matthew’s audience Jesus’ prophetic action of judgment on the temple and so its leaders (21:12–17; 24:1–35).

22:3 invited to the banquet . . . but they refused to come. The center of the parable is the invitation that goes out to expected, and then unexpected, guests. In the story the rejection of the invitation escalates quickly from ignoring it (22:5) to killing the slaves who bring it (22:6). This rather odd detail encourages the reader to move outside the parable and identify this action with the extreme action of the tenants in the previous parable (21:35–39). It is rejection of God’s invitation through Jesus that is the central thrust of this parable.

22:7 The king . . . sent his army . . . and burned their city. Some have understood this part of the parable to refer to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, likely a past event for Matthew’s audience (see the section “Date and Provenance” in the introduction).

22:10 the servants . . . gathered . . . the bad as well as the good. This detail of the parable prepares for the presence in the next verse of a man who lacks the proper wedding clothes—that is, good deeds.

22:11 he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. The referent of “wedding clothes” (not included in Luke’s version [Luke 14:15–24]) has been variously identified. Given Matthew’s emphasis on doing God’s will (e.g., 7:16–23; 12:33–37, 48–50) and the preceding reference to people producing fruit who will inherit the kingdom (21:43), it is likely that the wedding clothes represent obedience or covenant faithfulness (see 25:1–46, where the way for Jesus’ followers to prepare for final judgment is by pursuing acts of justice and mercy).

22:14 For many are invited, but few are chosen. This concluding aphorism derives its meaning from the parable. The many who are invited are portrayed as expected and unexpected, good and bad (22:10), so the “many” represent the scope of the invitation’s audience. The few who are chosen are those who are not necessarily expected in the kingdom but who are prepared for the coming kingdom by their covenant faithfulness. This “chosen few,” surprisingly in Matthew’s story, does not include the esteemed Jerusalem leaders, whom Jesus’ audience would have expected to be first in line for the kingdom (cf. 21:31, 43).

Teaching the Text

1. These three kingdom parables indicate that covenant faithfulness, not rank or status, is central to kingdom participation. While the Jewish leaders, specifically in this passage the chief priests, Jewish elders, and Pharisees (21:23, 45), could be expected to be first in line for the kingdom, given their status as Israel’s spiritual leaders, Jesus’ parables illustrate that these leaders will not enter the kingdom without repentance and faith (21:32). In fact, Jesus commends those who were considered least worthy or likely to make it into the kingdom: tax collectors and prostitutes (21:31). The parable of the wedding banquet illustrates the wide-open nature of the kingdom invitation (“invite to the banquet anyone you can find” [22:9]). Preaching and teaching this message of invitation for all persons is relatively easy, but we need to back up our words with actions. We can speak of God’s wide-open invitation, but people will judge our message by our actions of inclusion or exclusion. Are we ready and willing to open our doors and hearts to the most unlikely and, seemingly, most unworthy of candidates? Are we ready to see covenant faithfulness in the repentance and faith of those who do not fit our community profile?

2. Jesus as the faithful Son of God in the final two parables is the fulcrum of people’s response: covenant faithfulness centers on their response to him. Whereas Jesus’ interpretation of the first parable (the parable of the two sons) identifies people’s response to John’s message as repenting and believing, the final two parables indicate that the center point of proper response is to Jesus himself (21:37; 22:2). Covenant loyalty—bearing fruit (21:43; 22:11)—is framed in terms of proper response to Jesus and his teachings (see 7:24–27; 28:20). The Jewish leaders fail in their task of leading the people because they reject Jesus as the Messiah and refuse his message. They prove themselves unfaithful to lead Israel and will not receive the kingdom (21:43). But all who respond to Jesus in repentance, trust, and covenant loyalty will be welcomed into God’s kingdom.

So does our preaching center on Jesus and his teachings? Does it illuminate who Jesus is, so that people have a clearer picture of him after hearing what we have to say? It is easy to preach about all sorts of things besides Jesus—life lessons, how-to sermons, and the like. These topics have their place, but the text of Matthew compels us to preach Jesus and provides us with all sorts of ways to do so. Jesus the Messiah should be the centerpiece of what people hear from us, as he was for Matthew. And we can offer the invitation to respond to Jesus, inviting people to turn to him in faith and faithfulness, worship, and allegiance.

Illustrating the Text

These three kingdom parables indicate that covenant faithfulness, not rank or status, is central to kingdom participation.

Cultural Experience: If these parables indicate God’s wide-open invitation to people and the importance of inclusion of those outside our community profile in the welcome of the church, then a look at cultural propensities to limit our welcoming reach and put up dividing walls could be helpful. Professor and researcher Setha Low, in her social analysis of the increasingly popular gated communities, has this to say based on interviews conducted with this population:

Whether it is Mexicans, black salesmen, workers, or “ethnic changes,” the message is the same: residents are using the walls, entry gates, and guards in an effort to keep perceived dangers outside of their homes, neighborhoods, and social world. Contact incites fear and concern, and in response they are moving to exclusive, private, residential developments where they can keep other people out with guards and gates. The walls are making visible the systems of exclusion that are already there; now the walls are constructed in concrete.1

Jesus as the faithful Son of God in the final two parables is the fulcrum of people’s response: covenant faithfulness centers on their response to him.

Children’s Games: Juxtaposing two childhood games might illuminate the importance of focusing people’s attention on Jesus as the center of human response. A “treasure hunt” consists of following various cluesto locate a prize at the end of the game. Players begin with a single clue that leads them to the next clue and to the next, with the final clue leading to the treasure. This kind of game has a transactional quality to it. The person who finds all the clues first wins the prize. The game “follow the leader” is quite different. In it, the leader is the focus throughout. There is no mapping of clues to get to a prize; instead, to be successful, the players must keep their focus on the leader and do what that person does. This game has a more relational quality to it and provides a better illustration of what Matthew calls his readers to do in relation to Jesus. Discipleship for Matthew is about people’s responses to Jesus the Messiah and his direction and teachings.

Quote: John Stott, in Authentic Christianity, points to Jesus as the centerpiece of our corporate life and witness.

The words “witness” and “testimony” have been much devalued, and are sometimes employed to describe what is little more than an essay in religious autobiography. But Christian witness is witness to Christ. And the Christ to whom we have a responsibility to witness is not merely the Christ of our personal experience, but the historic Christ, the Christ of apostolic testimony. There is no other Christ.2

Teaching the Text by Jeannine K. Brown, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Army

The army of Israel was primarily a volunteer military force directed by God and his word. Deuteronomy 20 establishes the guidelines for warfare, Num. 1 describes organization, and Num. 2:17 highlights God’s strategic position as commander in the sacred event of war. Israelite warriors were men twenty years and older from the nation’s tribes, clans, and families. The Levites were appointed tabernacle caretakers and not counted in the census for military duties. The priest was responsible for addressing the nation prior to a battle and then leading the battle procession in connection with the ark of the covenant.

The Israelite army structure is not overly developed in the biblical material. Under God as commander in chief was the king, who then worked in connection with his commanders and officers to execute God’s will by means of a tribal confederation. Prior to the monarchy, God worked through Moses and Joshua to rally the men for battle. Samuel warned the nation that the king would abuse the volunteerism of the army and take their sons and make them render military service with his chariots and horses (1 Sam. 8:11 12). This warning was realized under the leadership of Solomon and Rehoboam. Army divisions included a list of family heads, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, and their officers. In addition, a period of their service was noted (1 Chron. 27).

Army size was not a matter of importance for success in battle. God as divine warrior led the nation in battle and determined the outcome in keeping with his sovereign purposes. Only a few Israelites were necessary to defeat thousands (Lev. 26:8; Deut. 32:8). The defeat of Pharaoh and his army in the exodus and the conquest provides the most dramatic premonarchy illustrations of God’s defiance of the numbers. During the monarchy, God orchestrated the defeat of the vast Aramean army with a smaller Israelite army (1 Kings 20:27). On the other hand, when the Israelites were disobedient to the covenant, they would be put to flight (Josh. 7).

Banquet

A banquet is a joyful celebration, usually involving wine, abundant food, music, and dancing. Banquets celebrated special occasions such as the forging of a relationship (Gen. 26:26 30), the coronation of a king (1 Chron. 12:28–40), the completion of the temple (2 Chron. 7:8), victory over one’s enemies (Gen. 14:18–19; Ps. 23:5), weddings (Gen. 29:22; John 2:1–11; Rev. 19:9), birthdays of royals (Mark 6:21), and the reunion of estranged relatives (Luke 15:23–24). Banquets also symbolized one’s status, since they were by invitation only. One’s seating arrangement corresponded to one’s social status in the group, since there were “higher” and “lower” positions (Luke 14:8–9). During the meal, people reclined on bedlike seats.

Jesus uses the banquet as a metaphor for the presence of the kingdom (cf. Matt. 9:14–17). He tells a parable of a king who has planned a wedding banquet for his son. Those who were invited have refused to attend (i.e., the Jewish leaders), so the king commands his servants to go out into the streets and gather as many people as they can find, both good and bad (Matt. 22:1–10).

Jesus also uses the imagery of a banquet to describe the final future manifestation of the kingdom. He exhorts his disciples to be prepared for the unexpected return of the bridegroom, lest they be excluded from the wedding banquet (Matt. 25:1–13). At the Last Supper, he commands the disciples to continue the practice of sharing bread and wine after his departure, to remember his atoning death and to anticipate his future coming (Matt. 26:26–29). This future banquet will celebrate Christ’s final union with his bride, the church (Rev. 19:6–9).

Farm

For the biblical Israelites and their ancestors, agriculture was one of the primary expressions of subsistence in their economy and life. The priority of agricultural pursuits for Israel’s worldview is indicated in the fact that it was among the first mandates given by God to man in the garden (Gen. 1:28 29).

The primary produce of the biblical farmer included cereals (wheat, barley, millet), legumes (beans, peas), olives, and grapes. Less predominant crops included nuts (almonds, walnuts, pistachios), herbs (cumin, coriander, sesame), and vegetables (cucumbers, onions, greens). The production of the various crops was largely limited to certain geographic regions of Israel (such as the coastal plain or the plains of Moab) because much of the land was ill suited for agriculture, being rocky and arid.

The actual craft of agriculture involved the three steps of sowing, reaping, and threshing/production. The fields typically were plowed following the first autumn rains, and sowing lasted about two months. Harvest season lasted seven months in all. Cereal products went through the process of threshing, whereas fruits were immediately produced into wine or dried. The practice of threshing the grains mostly took place on threshing floors located adjacent to the fields. The threshing floors were designed as a circle, generally twenty-five to forty feet in diameter. Typically animals such as donkeys or oxen were driven around the floor as the grains were fed into their paths and subsequently crushed. The resulting broken husks were then thrown into the air, allowing the wind to carry away the chaff and producing a separated grain that could then be cleaned and processed for home use.

Besides playing a significant role in the practical matters of life, agricultural practices found numerous applications in the images and ideals of the biblical writers (Judg. 8:2; 9:8–15; Ezek. 17:6–10). The medium could be used to express both blessings and curses. Several texts point to the cursing of agricultural endeavors as a punishment from God. Ceremonial defilement was a possibility if proper methodology in sowing seeds was not followed (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9). Similarly, Yahweh’s assessment of Israel’s failure to uphold the covenant commitments could lead to disease, locust attacks, crop failure, and total loss of the land (Deut. 28:40; Joel 1:4; Amos 7:1). Conversely, agricultural bounty and blessings were also a part of covenant stipulations. Indeed, many of the offerings themselves were centered on agriculture (Lev. 2; Num. 18:8–32). Even the Sabbath rest itself was extended to matters of agriculture and care for the land (Lev. 25:1–7). Finally, the covenant saw some of the greatest benefits of life before Yahweh as being blessed through agricultural bounty (Deut. 28:22; Amos 9:13). In a few cases, agricultural imagery cut both ways. For instance, the vine was an image that could express judgment, care, and restoration in both Judaism and Christianity (Isa. 5:1–8; John 15:1–11). Despite the link between agricultural realities and the covenant, the Scriptures are very careful to distinguish Israel from the fertility cults of its Canaanite neighbors (1 Kings 18:17–40; Hos. 2:8–9). This distinction also seems to have found expression in certain NT texts (1 Cor. 6:15–20).

Gnashing of Teeth

The act of grating or grinding one’s teeth together. The phrase is frequently found in the OT as an expression of anger. Most often the wicked gnash their teeth toward the righteous (Pss. 35:16; 37:12; 112:10; Lam. 2:16). In the teaching of Jesus, the gnashing of teeth is associated with a place of future punishment, especially in the Gospel of Matthew (8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). In the NT, gnashing of teeth is often associated with the place of outer darkness, where there is weeping. In this case, the gnashing of teeth may be an expression of anger and hence the continual refusal to repent. In the context of punishment, the picture may also express futility in the face of judgment.

Heaven

The present abode of God and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The ancient Jews distinguished three different heavens. The first heaven was the atmospheric heavens of the clouds and where the birds fly (Gen. 1:20). The second heaven was the celestial heavens of the sun, the moon, and the stars. The third heaven was the present home of God and the angels. Paul builds on this understanding of a third heaven in 2 Cor. 12:2 4, where he describes himself as a man who “was caught up to the third heaven” or “paradise,” where he “heard inexpressible things.” This idea of multiple heavens also shows itself in how the Jews normally spoke of “heavens” in the plural (Gen. 1:1), while most other ancient cultures spoke of “heaven” in the singular.

Although God is present everywhere, God is also present in a special way in “heaven.” During Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Father is sometimes described as speaking in “a voice from heaven” (Matt. 3:17). Similarly, Jesus instructs us to address our prayers to “Our Father in heaven” (6:9). Even the specific request in the Lord’s Prayer that “your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (6:10) reminds us that heaven is a place already under God’s full jurisdiction, where his will is presently being done completely and perfectly. Jesus also warns of the dangers of despising “one of these little ones,” because “their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (18:10). Jesus “came down from heaven” (John 6:51) for his earthly ministry, and after his death and resurrection, he ascended back “into heaven,” from where he “will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

Given this strong connection between heaven and God’s presence, there is a natural connection in Scripture between heaven and the ultimate hope of believers. Believers are promised a reward in heaven (“Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven” [Matt. 5:12]), and even now believers can “store up for [themselves] treasures in heaven” (6:20). Even in this present life, “our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20), and our hope at death is to “depart and be with Christ, which is better by far” (1:23). Since Christ is currently in heaven, deceased believers are already present with Christ in heaven awaiting his return, when “God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him” (1 Thess. 4:14).

King

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

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

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

Light

God begins his creation with light, which precedes the creation of sun, moon, and stars and throughout Scripture is an unqualified good (Gen. 1:3 5, 15–18; Exod. 10:23; 13:21). In the ancient world, people rarely traveled at night and usually went to bed soon after sunset. The only light in the home was a small oil lamp set on a stand, which burned expensive olive oil. Light is a biblical synonym for life (Job 3:20; John 8:12). Seeing the light means living (Ps. 49:19; see also Job 33:30). Conversely, darkness is often a symbol of adversity, disaster, and death (Job 30:26; Isa. 8:22; Jer. 23:12; Lam. 3:2).

John, who offers perhaps the most profound meditations on light, claims that God is light (1 John 1:5). The predicate appropriates the intrinsic beauty of light, a quality that draws people’s hearts back to the author of beauty. For the apostle, light represents truth and signifies God’s will in opposition to the deception of the world (John 1:9; 12:46). Light stands for purity and signifies God’s holiness as opposed to the unrighteousness of the world (John 3:19–21). Light is where God is, and it radiates from the place of fellowship between God and his creation (John 1:7).

Marriage

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.

Parables

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

Remnant

The central idea of the remnant concept or remnant theology is that in the midst of seemingly total apostasy and the consequential terrible judgment and/or destruction, God always has a small, faithful group that he delivers and works through to bring blessing.

Early allusions to the idea of a remnant are introduced in the book of Genesis. Noah and his family (Gen. 6 9) are the remnant that is saved during the flood, when all other people are destroyed in judgment. The remnant theme surfaces in several other places in the OT. For example, when Elijah complains to God that he is the only faithful one left, God corrects him by pointing out that he has maintained a remnant of seven thousand faithful ones in the midst of national apostasy (1 Kings 19:10–18).

However, it is in the OT prophets that the remnant theme flowers into full blossom. The Hebrew words for “remnant” (she’ar, she’erit) occur over one hundred times in the prophetic books. The prophets proclaim that since Israel/Judah has broken the covenant and refuses to repent and turn back to God, judgment is coming. This judgment takes the form of terrible foreign invasions and destruction, followed by exile from the land. Thus, the northern kingdom, Israel, is destroyed and exiled by the Assyrians in 722 BC, and the southern kingdom, Judah, is destroyed and exiled by the Babylonians in 587/586 BC. Yet the prophets also prophesy hope and restoration beyond the judgment. They declare that many will be destroyed in the judgment, but not all. They prophesy that a remnant will survive, and that God will work through the remnant to bring blessings and restoration. Usually the remnant is identified as those who go into exile but who likewise hope to return to the land. The reestablishment of the remnant is often connected with the inauguration of the messianic age.

The remnant theme continues into the NT, but it is not nearly as prominent in the NT as it is in the OT prophets. The term “remnant” does not occur in the Gospels, although the idea is implied in several texts. Thus, in Matt. 7:13–14 Jesus states, “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 the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Likewise, in Matt. 22:14 Jesus summarizes his preceding parable by stating, “Many are invited, but few are chosen.”

Direct Matches

Banquet

A banquet is a joyful celebration, usually involving wine, abundant food, music, and dancing. Banquets celebrated special occasions such as the forging of a relationship (Gen. 26:26–30), the coronation of a king (1 Chron. 12:28–40), the completion of the temple (2 Chron. 7:8), victory over one’s enemies (Gen. 14:18–19; Ps. 23:5), weddings (Gen. 29:22; John 2:1–11; Rev. 19:9), birthdays of royals (Mark 6:21), and the reunion of estranged relatives (Luke 15:23–24). Banquets also symbolized one’s status, since they were by invitation only. One’s seating arrangement corresponded to one’s social status in the group, since there were “higher” and “lower” positions (Luke 14:8–9). During the meal, people reclined on bedlike seats.

In the OT, the image of a banquet anticipates a future occasion when God will remove the reproach of his people (Isa. 25:6). It also becomes a metaphor for special access to God, who protects, blesses, and honors his people (Ps. 23:5).

The plot of the book of Esther revolves around banquets. The book opens with two big banquets held by Ahasuerus (Esther 1) that conclude with the removal of Vashti as queen, soon replaced by Esther. Esther invites the king and Haman to a banquet in order to expose the insidious plot of the latter (Esther 7). The book culminates with a great banquet that is the prototype for an annual banquet celebrating the Jews’ victory over their enemies, Purim (9:2–32).

Call

A call or calling is God’s summons to live one’s life in accordance with his purposes. At creation God instructed Adam to fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over it. God created Eve to be Adam’s lifelong companion and to help him fulfill this task (Gen. 1:28). Thus, in the broader (universal) sense, the notion of calling includes the ordinances that God established at creation: work (Gen. 2:15), marriage (2:18, 24), building a family (1:28), and Sabbath rest (2:2–3).

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they became alienated from God (Gen. 3:6–19). Their fall brought the same plight of alienation from God upon all humanity. However, it did not abolish the human duty to carry out God’s original creation ordinances. Since God showers his blessings on everyone alike (common grace), all human beings possess gifts and are given opportunities to “fill” the earth and “subdue” it. Thus, everyone participates in the universal call (Acts 17:25–26). This has come to be called the “cultural mandate.”

However, God’s original intention was to have communion with human beings. This could not be realized unless he made provision for human beings to be reconciled with him. Against this backdrop, God initiated his plan to redeem people from their plight of spiritual alienation.

The general call. The promise of God to bring deliverance through a future descendant of Eve established the provision for individuals (e.g., Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah) to be “called” back into a relationship of favor with him (Gen. 3:15). The first occasion when this call is made explicit is in God’s call to Abram to leave his country and go to a land that God would show him (11:32–12:1). God promised that Abram would become the father of a nation (12:2–3). In response to God’s call and his promise, Abram believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (15:6). Abram’s call was implicitly twofold. First, it was a general call to acknowledge this God as the true God and yield to his lordship. Second, it entailed a specific call to leave his country and journey toward a new country.

Several generations later, God appointed Moses to lead these descendants of Abraham out of Egypt, where they had lived for four hundred years. God’s act of delivering them from slavery in Egypt also symbolized redemption from sin’s bondage (Exod. 20:2). God had called the people by means of a covenant to be his own special people, to serve him as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (19:5–6). This was a call to set their lives apart for God by living according to his commands. This general call was more than a verbal summons; it was also the means God used to bring his people into existence (Hos. 11:1).

The NT indicates there is a general call to all people to believe in Christ (Matt. 11:28; Acts 17:30) that becomes effective in the ones that God has already chosen (Matt. 22:14; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4–5). The latter, which theologians identify as the “effectual call,” is what Paul refers to when he says, “Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. . . . And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). Thus, this is also a sovereign call.

Particular callings. God has endowed each individual Christian with a particular gift set and calls each one to use those gifts in a variety of ways in service to him (1 Pet. 4:10). These callings include one’s occupation, place of residence, status as married or single, involvement in public life, and service in the local church. In the OT, God gifted Bezalel and “filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills” (Exod. 35:31–32) to beautify the tabernacle. In the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that God has made each of us stewards of whatever he has entrusted to us; we are to become skilled in the use of our gifts and to seek opportunities to use them in service to him (Matt. 25:14–30). Desire is an important factor in discerning one’s particular callings (Ps. 37:4). One’s particular calling is progressive, unfolding through the different seasons of one’s life (Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 7:20, 24). No particular calling is more “sacred” than another in God’s eyes.

Called

Calling

Cattle

A collective designation for bovine animals mentioned in passages involving economic, political, military, and religious aspects of life. Cattle are property (Exod. 22:1; 2 Sam. 12:2) and food (Matt. 22:4), with herds of cattle being a sign of wealth and God’s blessing (Gen. 24:35; 1 Kings 4:21–23; cf. Rev. 18:11–13). Cattle are exchanged in business transactions (Gen. 47:16–17) and political treaties (21:27). Military instructions may reference cattle (1 Sam. 15:3). Cattle are to be used for sacrifices (Exod. 22:1; Lev. 22:19; Num. 22:40) unless God says otherwise (1 Sam. 15:14–25). Although kings take the best cattle for themselves (1 Sam. 8:16; 1 Kings 4:21–23), the cattle on a thousand hills belong to God (Pss. 50:10; 104:14). God is concerned for the city of Nineveh based on the number of its people and its cattle (Jon. 4:11). To be called “cattle” is considered an insult to one’s intelligence (Job 18:3; cf. Amos 4:1). King Nebuchadnezzar learns humility after experiencing how cattle live (Dan. 4:25–37). Cattle are among the animals that Jesus drives out of the temple courts (John 2:14–15).

Darkness

At the beginning of creation, the darkness “over the surface of the deep” is not a primordial principle of chaos to be combated by God (as sometimes suggested), but simply something that prepares for his creation of light in Gen. 1:3. The “thick and dreadful darkness” that came over sleeping Abram (Gen. 15:12) was an indicator of the reception of a mysterious divine revelation involving a manifestation of God in the form of a smoking fire pot and a blazing torch (15:17). Likewise, the thick cloud and darkness that shrouded Mount Sinai (Deut. 4:11; 5:23; Ps. 18:7–10) was a sign of God’s presence and also hid him from the sight of the Israelites.

A plague of darkness was inflicted on Egypt as a prelude to the exodus deliverance (Exod. 10) and made darkness a sign and symbol of God’s judgment. In prophetic teaching, the coming “day of the Lord” in judgment upon Israel and the nations is “a day of darkness and gloom” (Joel 2:2, 31; Amos 5:18–20; Zeph.1:14–15). The wicked will be thrust into darkness (Prov. 4:19; Isa. 8:22). Jesus used such imagery when speaking of punishment in hell (e.g., Matt. 22:13; 25:30). The moral life of a believer involves turning away from deeds of darkness (Eph. 5:8–11; 1 Thess. 5:4–8).

Darkness is associated with Sheol and death (e.g., Job 10:21; 17:13) and so also becomes a metaphor of a situation of distress, especially life-threatening danger (Ps. 107:10, 14). In contrast, the dispelling of darkness becomes a metaphor of God’s saving help in Isa. 9:2: “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light” (cf. Isa. 10:17). That salvation will include the provision of a future Davidic ruler (Isa. 9:6–7), so that the coming of Jesus is the dawning of light (John 1:5; 12:35).

This rich OT background gives a context to the three-hour period of darkness as Jesus hung on the cross (Matt. 27:45). This began at the sixth hour (i.e., noon) and signaled that the judgment day was taking place as Jesus suffered in the place of sinners (cf. Amos 8:9).

Fatling

A young domestic animal, whether of cattle or sheep, that has been specially fattened for sacrificial or other use. In the OT, it usually refers to a sacrificial animal of high quality, which signified that the best had been given. Fatlings were offered on festive occasions, as when David brought the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:13) and Adonijah put himself forward to succeed David as king (1 Kings 1:9, 19, 25). Even though they are valuable offerings, God rejects fattened calves and other sacrifices presented by those with impure hearts or who act unjustly (Isa. 1:11; Amos 5:22). People can be likened to fattened calves that God will slaughter as he triumphs over his enemies and purifies the land (Jer. 46:21; Ezek. 39:18). A fattened calf could be quickly killed to provide food for an unexpected visitor or specially prepared for a banquet (1 Sam. 28:24; Matt. 22:4). In Jesus’ parable of the lost son, the father had a fattened calf slaughtered to express his joy that his errant son had returned home (Luke 15:23–30).

Guest

One who receives hospitality at another’s home or table. Hospitality was a matter of honor in ancient times. It was shameful to mistreat a guest (Judg. 19:23). A guest received special portions at the table (1 Sam. 9:22–24; Esther 1:3), although the guest of a Levitical priest was not allowed to eat the sacred offering (Lev. 22:10). Job’s misfortunes alienated him from his guests (Job 19:15), but the guests of the metaphorical Woman Folly fared worse (Prov. 9:18).

Guests abound in Jesus’ parables about banquets and weddings (Matt. 22:10–11; Mark 2:19; Luke 14:16; 19:7). Jesus himself was often a guest (Luke 7:49; 14:7; 22:11; John 2:10). King Herod’s misguided concern for his dinner guests caused the death of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:9; Mark 6:22, 26).

Hall

A large room, usually in a palace or a temple (1 Kings 6:3). The hall, or main room, in Solomon’s temple was surrounded by smaller side rooms (1 Kings 6:5), had entrance doors framed with olive wood (1 Kings 6:33), and was paneled with juniper decorated with gold (2 Chron. 3:5). Solomon’s throne room was called the “Hall of Justice” (1 Kings 7:7). Queen Esther waited outside the king’s hall, or throne room, for an audience with the Persian king (Esther 5:1). A royal or official banquet room is a hall (1 Sam. 9:22; Esther 7:8; Song 2:4; Dan. 5:10; Matt. 22:10).

In the KJV, the governor’s palace, or praetorium, where Jesus was led after his arrest is identified as a hall (Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16) or hall of judgment (John 18:28, 33; 19:9), as are the courtyard where Peter first denied Jesus (Luke 22:55) and the palace of Herod Agrippa, where Paul was kept under guard (Acts 23:35). When Paul could no longer preach in the synagogue in Ephesus, he held daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9).

Marriage

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

Theology of Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage in the Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage in the New Testament

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

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

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

Symbolic Use of Marriage

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

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

Parable

Parables in the Bible

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

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

Table 4. Major Parables of Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

Hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)

Net (Matt. 13:47-50)

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

Unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23-35)

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

Two sons (Matt. 21:28-32)

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

Wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2-14)

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

Ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)

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

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

Growing seeds (Mark 4:26-29)

Money lender (Luke 7:41-47)

Good Samritan (Luke 10:30-37)

Friend in need (Luke 11:5-8)

Rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)

Unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)

Lowest seat (Luke 14:7-14)

Great banquet (Luke 14:16-24)

Cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33)

Lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)

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

Shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8)

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

Persistent widow (Luke 18:2-8)

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

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

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

Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables

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

Interpretation of Parables

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

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

Details in the Parable and its Allegorical Equivalent:

The man = Adam

Jerusalem = The heavenly city

Jericho = The moon (a symbol of mortality)

The robbers = The devil

Beating the man = Persuading him to sin

Priest and Levite = The Old Testament priesthood

Samaritan = Christ

Binding of wounds = Restraint of sin

Oil = Comfort of hope

Animal = Incarnation

Inn = Church

Innkeeper = Apostle Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remnant

The concept of a remnant or a “remnant theology” runs throughout Scripture. Although appearing in a wide variety of texts and contexts, the central idea of the remnant concept or remnant theology is that in the midst of seemingly total apostasy and the consequential terrible judgment and/or destruction, God always has a small, faithful group that he delivers and works through to bring blessing.

Old Testament

Early allusions to the idea of a remnant are introduced in the book of Genesis. Noah and his family (Gen. 6–9) are the remnant that is saved during the flood, when all other people are destroyed in judgment. Likewise, in Gen. 45:6–7 Joseph declares to his brothers, “For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”

The remnant theme surfaces in several other places in the OT. For example, when Elijah complains to God that he is the only faithful one left, God corrects him by pointing out that he has maintained a remnant of seven thousand faithful ones in the midst of national apostasy (1 Kings 19:10–18).

However, it is in the OT prophets that the remnant theme flowers into full blossom. The Hebrew words for “remnant” (she’ar, she’erit) occur over one hundred times in the prophetic books. The prophets proclaim that since Israel/Judah has broken the covenant and refuses to repent and turn back to God, judgment is coming. This judgment takes the form of terrible foreign invasions and destruction, followed by exile from the land. Thus, the northern kingdom, Israel, is destroyed and exiled by the Assyrians in 722 BC, and the southern kingdom, Judah, is destroyed and exiled by the Babylonians in 587/586 BC. Yet the prophets also prophesy hope and restoration beyond the judgment. They declare that many will be destroyed in the judgment, but not all. They prophesy that a remnant will survive, and that God will work through the remnant to bring blessings and restoration. Usually the remnant is identified as those who go into exile but who likewise hope to return to the land. The reestablishment of the remnant is often connected with the inauguration of the messianic age.

New Testament

In Rom. 11 Paul is much more explicit. Not only does he use the term “remnant,” but also in Rom. 11:2–5 he connects his argument specifically to the remnant idea in 1 Kings 19:18 (“I have reserved for myself seven thousand”). Paul is pointing out the similarities between the apostasy in Israel in 1 Kings 19 and the parallel rejection of the Messiah by Israel during Paul’s day. In both cases the nation had rejected God’s word and his salvation plan. But in both situations, even though the nation as a whole has rejected God, God maintains a faithful remnant. Paul also underscores that the remnant is established by God’s grace. Thus, in Rom. 11:5 Paul explains, “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.” In the early church, that remnant consisted of Jewish Christians like Paul himself. And to the degree that the church as a whole inherited the promises to Israel, it too could be included in the category of remnant (see again Rom. 11:11–24; cf. 1 Pet. 2:5–10; Rev. 7; 14). Indeed, Paul hopes that the conversion of Gentiles to Christ might make his Jewish compatriots jealous so that they may “take back” their Messiah (in Rom. 11, cf. vv. 11–12 with vv. 25–36). In that case, national Israel would become the spiritual remnant for the very first time in Israel’s history, because “all Israel” would be saved. That is, national Israel and spiritual Israel would be one.

Another way to grasp the idea of the remnant as it unfolds throughout the Bible is to use an hourglass illustration (i.e., wide, narrow, wide). Thus, God had created the world to have fellowship with him, only to have his creation spurn that offer. To rectify this problem, God calls Abraham out from paganism in order that he might make of him a new people, Israel, to worship God and declare him to the nations. Alas, however, Israel in time disobeys God’s law just as the nations of the world had disobeyed God by worshiping other gods. But the purpose of God is not thereby thwarted, for he raises up a remnant, a faithful few who remain true to Yahweh (e.g., Elijah and the later returnees to Israel). However, by the end of the OT the hopes of Israel now rest upon one individual, the Messiah, who will turn the hearts of Jews back to God and who will convert the nations of the earth to the one true God. As it turns out, then, Israel’s rejection of God throughout the OT actually carries along the plan of God as it narrows its focus, culminating in the expectation of the one Messiah. But with the advent of Jesus Christ, the focus of God now widens, beginning with the apostles (the beginnings of the remnant in the NT), expanding to include the church (the replacement of Israel, however temporary that may be), and one day encompassing the world (which will bring the revelation of God full circle).

Streets

Streets facilitated transportation within a community both in joining residential and public buildings for daily tasks and by linking city fortifications for the timely deployment of troops during a siege. In most large cities, a peripheral street ran along the inside of the city wall, primarily serving for quick defensive access to the wall ramparts. Additional streets bisected the residential and public quarters of the city’s interior. Larger main streets, as well as city gates, served as main places of commerce in ancient cities. Main streets typically led to the center of the city or to any important structures, such as palaces or temples.

The NT period saw a clear dichotomy between Jewish cities and those of Greek or Roman influence. Greco-Roman cities typically were well planned and rectilinear and included colonnaded streets. These typical “main” streets were lined with continuous rows of columns supporting a roof, originally developed to provide shade for marketplaces. Commerce took place under these colonnades or in public plazas. Colonnaded streets were paved and contained sidewalks for pedestrians and furnishings, such as statues of deities. Jewish cities, however, had no formal plan. Rather than being laid out in structured quarters divided by grids of neatly arranged streets, buildings in Jewish cities were constructed randomly over time. Roads were constructed later on and built around existing clumps of buildings as needed.

In the Bible, streets—along with squares and alleys—are often symbolic of public places. In the streets people call out in proclamation (2 Sam. 1:20; Esther 6:9) or in search of others (Song 3:2; Jer. 5:1; Matt. 22:9–10; Luke 14:21), or they wail in grief and distress (Ps. 144:14; Amos 5:16). On the street corners idolaters flaunt worship of false gods (Jer. 44:17; Ezek. 16:25) and hypocrites flaunt their piety (Matt. 6:2, 5). When a city is conquered or punished, the dead and destitute lie in the streets (Isa. 5:25; Lam. 4:5; Ezek. 11:6) or the streets are entirely deserted (Jer. 33:10; Zeph. 3:6). But when a city prospers, the streets are rebuilt (Isa. 58:12) and are filled with playing children (Zech. 8:4–5). Streets are also described as dusty and muddy (2 Sam. 22:43; Lam. 2:21; Mic. 7:10; Zech. 10:5), requiring the washing of feet (cf. John 13).

Teeth

OT law considered the loss of a tooth or an eye equally serious (Exod. 21:24, 27; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38–39). Perfect, clean, white teeth are a mark of beauty (Song 4:2; 6:6). When nations or people destroy, it is with sharp teeth (Deut. 32:24 [NIV: “fangs”]; Job 29:17; 41:14; Ps. 57:4; Prov. 30:14; Joel 1:6). The psalmist calls upon Yahweh “to break the teeth” of the wicked (Pss. 3:7; 58:6). Hell, described as a place of “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12; 13:42; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28), graphically pictures the suffering reserved for those outside the kingdom of God.

Weddings

Ceremonies marking entry into marriage. In the Bible, weddings initiate the formation of new households with the blessing of family and community.

Old Testament

In the OT, weddings were important to the patriarchs and to Israel because the new couple was expected to produce children to help fulfill the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:2; 17:6; 22:15–18; Ruth 4:11–13; Isa. 65:23). Heirs were also the assurance that a man’s name remained eternally with Israel, so much so that if a man died childless, his brother was obligated to wed the widow and produce children in his name (Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5–10). Moreover, weddings assured that property was kept within families and tribes and also transferred in an orderly way from one generation to the next (Num. 36:1–12; Ruth 4:5; Ps. 25:13).

Multiple wives were allowed in the OT (Gen. 30:26; Deut. 21:15; 1 Sam. 1:2; 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3), as were multiple concubines, who had official standing in the household, though lower than that of wives. Weddings usually were associated with a man publicly taking a wife; he acquired concubines with less fanfare (Gen. 16:1–3; 30:3–5; Judg. 19:1, 3).

OT weddings included certain distinctive elements. The bridegroom or his father paid a bride-price, or dowry, to the father of the bridegroom’s prospective wife (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16–17; 1 Sam. 18:25). The bridegroom had a more central role than the bride. He emerged from a chamber or tent to claim his wife (Ps. 19:5; Joel 2:16), who, in the case of a royal wedding, may have processed to him (Ps. 45:13–15). Both he and the bride were adorned (Song 3:11; Isa. 49:18; 61:10; Jer. 2:32); the woman was also veiled (Gen. 24:65; 29:23, 25; 38:14, 19; Song 4:1, 3; Isa. 47:1–3). Their wedding was the occasion of much rejoicing and feasting (Gen. 29:22; Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11) and lasted seven days (Gen. 29:27; Judg. 14:17). The main event was their sexual union (Isa. 62:5), which occurred on the first night (Gen. 29:23; Ruth 4:13). Unless she had been a widow, the bride was presumed to be a virgin on her wedding night, and evidence of her virginity, a bloodstained cloth, was retained as proof (Deut. 22:13–19). Virginity was essential to a previously unmarried bride; a woman who had been raped or otherwise engaged in premarital sexual relations was deemed defiled and unmarriageable to any but the first man with whom she had intercourse (Deut. 22:21; 2 Sam. 13:1–20). The importance of this underpins the shock value of the book of Hosea (see esp. 1:2), an extended metaphor that presents Israel as a prostitute nevertheless pursued by Yahweh as her husband.

New Testament

The NT continues to testify to many of these wedding traditions, significantly including the gathering of community (Matt. 22:2; John 2:1–2) in joyful celebration (Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34; John 2:9–10). Wedding feasts could be lavish affairs (Matt. 22:4; John 2:6–10), with protocols regarding seating (Luke 14:8–10) and attire (Matt. 22:11–13; Rev. 19:7–9).

In the NT, these and other first-century wedding customs illustrate aspects of the kingdom of heaven. The parable of the wedding feast (Matt. 22:1–14) contrasts the invited guests (corrupt religious leaders in Israel) who ignored the king’s wedding invitation and murdered his servants with those people, good and evil, gathered from the streets (the downtrodden) who took their place. Their willingness to attend is qualified only by their coming properly attired in wedding robes, which by inference were provided by the king himself (Rev. 19:7–8).

The parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13) plays on the understanding that weddings occurred not at a specific time but when the bridegroom was ready. His readiness was determined by, among other things, the readiness of a dwelling place for his new bride. In first-century Capernaum, this would have been a room or rooms built onto his father’s insula, a multifamily compound surrounding an interior courtyard; the same image is behind John 14:2–4. The parable, identifying the Son of Man as the bridegroom, illustrates that while his coming in glory is certain, its timing is unknown. Therefore, the bridal party is to be vigilant and prepared.

Elsewhere, Jesus is specifically named as the bridegroom preparing to marry his bride, the church (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25–27, 31–32). The wedding feast at Cana (John 2:1–11), which begins Jesus’ public ministry, points proleptically to the marriage supper of the Lamb, which inaugurates the eschatological age (Rev. 19:7–9). The culminating picture of God with his people (Deut. 16:13–16; Matt. 1:23; John 1:14) is a magnificent wedding (Rev. 21:2, 9) between Christ and the new Jerusalem.

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because Matthew 22:1-14 is mentioned in the definition.

Deacon

Terminology

“Deacon” is an English translation of the Greek word diakonos. Generically, this term refers to one who serves, and the word is used with this sense repeatedly throughout the NT (e.g., Matt. 20:26; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43). Matthew 22:13 speaks specifically of those who serve by doing the bidding of a king. John 2:9 refers to the servants who draw the water at the wedding in Cana. Various other passages use diakonos in a religious context with reference to ministers or those who serve God or Christ in some way (Rom. 13:4; 2 Cor. 6:4; Eph. 6:21; Col. 1:7; 1 Tim. 4:6). This broad usage of the term to indicate general service, including table service, is also quite common in the secular Greek literature of the first century.

As the early church grew and developed, the word diakonos came to designate the specific church office of deacon. Although often cited, Acts 6 is inconclusive regarding the office of deacon. The noun diakonos does not appear in this text, but the related verb form diakoneō (“to wait on” [Acts 6:2]) is used in reference to the ministry of distributing food. Some interpreters find in this the precursor or establishment of the diaconate, but others argue that the use of diakoneō to speak of table service need not imply that the role of deacon had developed at this early stage of the church. Only two passages in the NT, Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8–12, clearly use diakonos in the sense of an established church office, and here the NIV rightly translates it as “deacon.”

The Office of Deacon

Paul’s address to the believers in Philippi is unique within the Pauline corpus in its singling out of two church offices. While directing his words to the saints at Philippi, Paul specifically makes mention of the “overseers” (Gk. episkopos) and deacons in their midst (Phil. 1:1). This greeting provides evidence of the existence of such ecclesiastical structure from the early AD 60s at the latest.

The most detailed information in the NT related to the office of deacon occurs in 1 Tim. 3:8–12. Immediately following a discussion of “overseers” (Gk. episkopos) in 1 Tim. 3:1–7, this text shifts its focus to the office of deacon and provides a description of the requirements for the one occupying the role. The one fit to serve as a deacon should have a character worthy of respect, and the passage calls for the demonstration of this character in the areas of drink, money (v. 8), and family (v. 12). A deacon should display a commitment to Christian truth (v. 9), and a candidate should be tested before officially being allowed to serve in this office (v. 10).

Deaconesses in the Early Church

Significant discussion surrounds the issue of whether the NT limits the role of deacon to men or whether it provides evidence of women serving as deacons, frequently designated with the feminized term “deaconess.” At issue is the translation of gynaikes in 1 Tim. 3:11. The NIV renders it as “women”; also within its range of meaning are the translations “wives” (ESV) and “women deacons.” The context of the passage must dictate whether the qualifications listed in 1 Tim. 3:11 apply to the wives of those men who wish to be deacons or whether they are the standard for those women who themselves desire to serve in the office of deacon. On the one hand, the subsequent clear address of a male deacon as needing to be “faithful to his wife” (1 Tim. 3:12) makes a reference to female deacons in 1 Tim. 3:11 an illogical interruption. However, those who see in 1 Tim. 3:11 a reference to female deacons cite the use of diakonos to describe Phoebe in Rom. 16:1 as evidence that she served as a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea. Alternatively, Rom. 16:1 may be speaking only of Phoebe’s great service to the church in that locale without implying that she occupied an official church office.

Whether or not 1 Tim. 3:11 and Rom. 16:1 have in mind the role of deaconess, it is clear that an order of deaconesses existed in the church after the first century. The most significant early evidence includes the Didaskalia Apostolorum (Syria, early third century AD), which describes the female deacon in the Eastern church as one who ministered by assisting women with their baptism, provided instruction to the recently baptized women, visited women who were ill, and provided service for women in need. The fourth-century Syrian Apostolic Constitutions affirms their function in similar activities and identifies additional duties, including maintaining the separation of the sexes during worship. It also describes their ordination by means of the laying on of hands and prayer.

Fattened Calf

Harmony of the Gospels

The desire to harmonize the differences between the canonical Gospels can be traced back to the second century, when Tatian (a second-century apologist) combined the four Gospels into one document known as the Diatessaron (Greek for “out of four”). This combined Gospel was used in the Syrian churches in the third and fourth centuries until it was replaced by the four canonical Gospels in the fifth century.

Material Common to More than One Gospel

All four Gospels portray Jesus as leading a group of disciples, preaching, healing, performing miracles, being crucified, and being raised from the dead. Matthew was written for a Jewish or Jewish Christian audience, reminding them that Jesus fulfills the Hebrew Scriptures. Mark was written for a Gentile audience, focusing more on narrative than on teaching and portraying Jesus as a man of miraculous, powerful action. Luke shows Jesus as one who is especially concerned for the poor and those on the fringes of society. John explains that Jesus, the eternal Word of God, is not a second god, but rather the one true God, sent by the Father to renew Israel.

People who are familiar with the content of the Gospel stories often confuse the information from different accounts. For example, there is actually no single story in the Bible about a “rich young ruler”: only Matthew describes the man as young (Matt. 19:20), and only Luke mentions that the man was a ruler (Luke 18:18).

Some material is found in all four Gospels, including information about John the Baptist, the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand, and the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection (although the individual accounts of the resurrection differ). Some material appears in three Gospels, especially in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These three Gospels have therefore been labeled the “Synoptic Gospels” (syn = together, optic = view). Stories found in all three Synoptic Gospels include the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–13; Mark 9:2–13; Luke 9:28–36); the healing of Jairus’s daughter and of a woman with a flow of blood (Matt. 9:18–26; Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:41–56); and the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30). The details do not agree in every respect in each account, but clearly they represent the same story and exhibit linguistic dependence on the same source(s).

A significant amount of material appears in two of the four canonical Gospels. Matthew and Mark have the story of a Syrophoenician woman (Matt. 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–30), and both Mark and Luke tell the story of a widow’s offering to the temple treasury (Mark 12:41–44; Luke 21:1–4). The most significant body of teachings and sayings found in two Gospels is the material shared by Matthew and Luke. Each of the Gospels contains material that does not appear in any other Gospel. Mark has the smallest amount of such material, John the largest.

The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels

Based on a study of the material common to more than one Gospel, and the material unique to one Gospel, John’s Gospel usually is seen as distinct from the other three. The most likely explanation for this is that John was written later, with knowledge of the other Gospels, and therefore the author saw no need to repeat most of this material (except what was central to his purposes). Some of the distinctive features of John’s Gospel are the use of terminology such as “love,” “light,” “life,” “truth,” “abide,” “knowledge,” “world,” and the “I am” statements. Furthermore, certain Synoptic terms are either rare or absent—for example, “kingdom,” “demons,” “power,” “pity,” “gospel,” “preach,” “repent,” “parable,” “tax collector.” More so than the Synoptics, John is written from the vantage point of the resurrection and with the aid of hindsight as well as the Spirit. This is why the author of John’s Gospel does not refrain from adding commentary to Jesus’ words (e.g., 2:21–22; 7:39; 11:51–52; 12:16).

The Synoptic Gospels are more interrelated. In passages that appear in these three Gospels, there is often very close verbal agreement between them (e.g., the healing of the leper [Matt. 8:2; Mark 1:40–44; Luke 5:12–14]; the question of Jesus’ authority [Matt. 21:23–27; Mark 11:27–33; Luke 20:1–8]), implying a common source. In many sections that are found in all three Synoptic Gospels, two agree extensively and the third diverges (e.g., Matt. 20:24–28 and Mark 10:41–45 against Luke 22:24–27). When two Gospels agree and one disagrees, Matthew and Mark often agree against Luke, and Luke and Mark often agree against Matthew; but Matthew and Luke do not often agree against Mark and never do so in regard to the order of material. At other points, the Gospel accounts diverge quite significantly when referring to the same events. The infancy narratives in Matthew are quite different from those in Luke. The two accounts of the parable of the wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2–14; Luke 14:16–24) differ so significantly that it is difficult to decide whether they are two versions of the same parable or two different stories. Reports on the resurrection diverge across all four Gospels.

It is possible that these similarities and differences can be traced back to the oral presentation of the gospel. Apostolic preaching would have formed itself into set ways of retelling the events of Jesus’ ministry through repetition. These accounts may have been told originally in Aramaic before being translated into Greek to facilitate the Gentile mission. The authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke could have been drawing from this common tradition in writing their Gospels. There is probably a degree of truth to this theory, but it cannot explain all the data. The theory does not account for similarities and differences in the order of events, nor does it explain why Matthew and Luke always return to Mark’s order after they deviate from it. A common oral tradition does not adequately explain similar editorial comments (e.g., cf. Matt. 24:15 with Mark 13:14), which suggest a common written source.

Some have argued that the apostles or others wrote records of the words of Jesus (memorabilia), which were collected and written down topically, from which the Synoptic Gospels were composed. As the church grew numerically and geographically, various collections of these memorabilia were made. Again, this is not beyond the realm of possibility; however, working against this theory is the complete absence of any reference to such records. Furthermore, as with the oral theory, it does not explain agreement in the order of material. It does, however, highlight the probability that the evangelists were using written sources.

Markan Priority and Q

On the assumption that the writers of the Synoptic Gospels employed a written source(s), several scholars have tried to reconstruct this original written Gospel from the material in the Synoptic Gospels. This document, which scholars call the Urevangelium (German for “original Gospel”), ended up bearing very close similarities with the Gospel of Mark. This is not surprising, since nearly all of Mark is repeated in Matthew and Luke. This led to the belief that Mark was the most primitive Synoptic Gospel, and that it was a common source for Matthew and Luke.

This belief in Markan priority, which has gained increasing popularity since the nineteenth century, has helped explain the similarities among the Synoptic Gospels. Traditionally, Matthew was thought to be the first Gospel to be written, hence the order of the Gospels in our NT. This belief in Matthean priority was upheld by several early church writers such as Augustine, who saw Mark as an abridgement of Matthew (Cons. 1.2). Augustine may have been more influenced by the traditional ordering of the Gospels than by an analysis of the Gospels themselves. Mark’s Gospel does not read like an abridgement; it is the shortest Gospel, but individual sections of it typically are longer and more detailed than in Matthew.

There are many reasons why the priority of Mark is probable. It is the shortest Gospel, containing 661 verses, whereas Matthew contains 1,068 and Luke contains 1,149. When their content is compared, 97.2 percent of Mark is paralleled in Matthew, and 88.4 percent of Mark is paralleled in Luke. It is easier to understand Matthew and Luke as using Mark and choosing to add additional material to it than to think of Mark as using Matthew, Luke, or both and deciding to omit material such as the birth narratives and the Sermon on the Mount. Mark has simpler Greek, which includes an extensive use of the present tense, redundancies (e.g., Mark 1:32: “that evening after sunset”; cf. Matt. 8:16: “when evening came”; Luke 4:40: “at sunset”), and various colloquialisms (e.g., the word for “mat” in Mark 2:4). Mark alone among the Gospels uses Aramaic terms such as abba (14:36), talitha koum (5:41), and ephphatha (7:34), although Matthew also mentions Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). It is easier to see how Luke and Matthew would have “improved” Mark than the reverse.

If we accept the priority of Mark, and Luke and Matthew’s dependence upon it, there are still the sections of Matthew and Luke that bear strong similarities with each other. From an analysis of the text of Matthew and Luke, it appears that these two evangelists did not know each other’s works. If one knew of the other’s work, why the divergence in some material such as the birth narratives? Alongside this, however, there are close similarities in other material: Matthew has 4,290 words that have parallels in Luke but not in Mark, and Luke has 3,559 words that have parallels in Matthew but not in Mark. The solution appears to be that Matthew and Luke were dealing with some material that they held in common, and that each of them also had other material that he drew on independently. The material held in common is commonly called “Q” (from the German word Quelle, meaning “source”); the material unique to Matthew is called “M” and that which is unique to Luke, “L.” Whether Q was a document is unknown, although it is more likely to be a collection of sources, as is also the case with M and L.

Many scholars argue that Q was a written rather than an oral source, based on the exact word parallels in the Greek text (e.g., Matt. 6:24 and Luke 16:13, where 27 of the 28 words are exactly the same). The presence of doublets (double accounts of the same incident) in Matthew and Luke may show dependence by the respective evangelists on both a Markan and a Q source (e.g., Luke 8:16; cf. Mark 4:21; Luke 11:33; cf. Matt. 5:15). Some scholars have tried to explain the sources geographically: Markan material originated in Rome, Q material in Antioch, M in Jerusalem, and L in Caesarea, but such speculations are far from proven.

Summary

Within all of this, in seeking to understand the harmony of the Gospels, it is important to be aware of what we do not know. Many of the solutions focus on a history behind the text to which we do not have access. Modern literary critics have tended to focus more on the text itself than its prehistory. There is merit in this because it affirms the priority of the text and allows the reader to understand how a part of the text functions within the larger literary unit. It also allows the evangelists to be more than collectors of sources, to have written distinctive theological accounts. Their different emphases may explain some of the differences between the Gospels. This approach, however, also has its dangers. Some who focus on the text over its original intent distance the text from the author’s purpose and therefore open the door for subjective interpretations that deny the difference between a correct and an incorrect reading of the text. It also raises the danger of reading an ancient text through modern eyes, losing sight of the original context.

The church has been well served by four Gospel traditions. The fact that esteem for the text has stopped overharmonization has been of great benefit, as the readers of the Gospels can appreciate various hues and emphases between the different accounts of the ministry of Jesus.

Hospitality

The practice of receiving strangers in order to offer provision and protection was an important concept in many of the cultures throughout the time period of both Testaments.

Hospitality first appears in Abraham’s care of the strangers who visit him in Gen. 18. The strangers in turn reveal God’s imminent fulfillment of his promise to provide a child to Abraham and Sarah. Thus, they return the good favor and kindness that they have received, which is the expected pattern of mutual goodwill that characterizes hospitality.

The unusual hospitality of Rebekah in offering water for Abraham’s servant’s camels distinguishes her as the wife whom God had appointed for Isaac (Gen. 24:1–49).

Part of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the men violate hospitality norms by demanding that the visiting angels have sex with them, which is in deep contrast to Lot’s attempt to welcome and protect the visitors (Gen. 19:1–9; see also Ezek. 16:49–50).

A conviction of the people of Israel is that God is their host in the promised land (Lev. 25:23). Jesus frequently is the beneficiary of the hospitality of others in the Gospels, and he sends out his disciples relying on it (Luke 9:1–4; 10:1–9). The messianic banquet is a theme of Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom of God (Matt. 8:11; 22:1–14; Luke 14:16–24). Hospitality is also commanded to be an aspect of early Christian communities, and it is a spiritual gift (Rom. 12:8, 13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9).

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.

Meals

A banquet is a joyful celebration, usually involving wine, abundant food, music, and dancing. Banquets celebrated special occasions such as the forging of a relationship (Gen. 26:26–30), the coronation of a king (1 Chron. 12:28–40), the completion of the temple (2 Chron. 7:8), victory over one’s enemies (Gen. 14:18–19; Ps. 23:5), weddings (Gen. 29:22; John 2:1–11; Rev. 19:9), birthdays of royals (Mark 6:21), and the reunion of estranged relatives (Luke 15:23–24). Banquets also symbolized one’s status, since they were by invitation only. One’s seating arrangement corresponded to one’s social status in the group, since there were “higher” and “lower” positions (Luke 14:8–9). During the meal, people reclined on bedlike seats.

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

Offices in the New Testament

These church offices are God-given positions of leadership within the early church designed to give it structure and direction. Some of these positions have ongoing application for today; others are important primarily for understanding the historical development of the church.

A definite structure for church leadership is God’s idea. Even though the equality of all believers is a biblical principle (the priesthood of all believers in 1 Pet. 2:5, 9), God has also chosen to give certain spiritual gifts of leadership (Rom. 12:8) or administration (1 Cor. 12:28) to a limited number within the church, not universally to everyone. Paul asks a series of rhetorical questions in 1 Cor. 12:29, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?” where the expected answer in each case clearly is “No, not everyone has every gift.” Believers are also specifically instructed to “obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb. 13:17 ESV, NRSV, NASB) and to respect those “who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you” (1 Thess. 5:12). God’s plan is clearly that there be specific leaders. At the same time, the NT does not always answer all our questions or spell out every detail in this area of church leadership. The more significant offices in the NT church include the following:

Apostle. Apostles formed the earliest and most important leadership structure. Jesus, early in his ministry, “called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles” (Luke 6:13). The word “disciple” (mathētēs) means “student” or “learner” and indicates the role of these original twelve during Jesus’ earthly ministry. Following Jesus’ death and resurrection, these same individuals (now minus Judas Iscariot) were typically called “apostles” (apostolos [lit., “sent-out one”), who were then entrusted with Christ’s power and authority as his official representatives. Paul describes the foundational role of this office in Eph. 2:20. Their power and authority were without parallel in the historical development of the church. Some other observations round out our understanding of this office. First, there are occasional (but limited) references to broader circles of apostles in the sense of other people being “sent out” by God for specific ministry. Thus, Barnabas is apparently described as an apostle alongside Paul (Acts 14:14), and James the brother of Jesus is described as an apostle (Gal. 1:19). However, Acts 1:21–22 spells out the usual qualifications for an apostle: “men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.” Thus, the apostleship, especially understood in the strict sense, is limited to original eyewitnesses from among the first generation of believers, and this office has not continued.

Prophet. The office of prophet (prophētēs) is another foundational one at the time of the establishment of the church (Eph. 2:20). Agabus is described as a prophet (Acts 21:10), and Paul assumes that there were prophets in the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 12:29). Although this is a controversial topic, many believe that this office no longer continues today.

Elder/presbyter. The office of elder or presbyter (presbyteros) is one of the most common in the church. This office is based on the model of elders in the Jewish synagogue. Paul and Bar-na-bas appointed elders in every church as early as their first missionary journey (Acts 14:23). James instructs the sick to call on the elders of the church to pray over them (James 5:14). The best job description for elders is 1 Tim. 5:17, where there are two major emphases: first, directing the affairs of the church, and second, preaching and teaching. Elders apparently always functioned in a plurality in Scripture, never as solo leaders.

Overseer/bishop. The office of overseer or bishop (episkopos) is mentioned in Phil. 1:1 as well as in 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7 in the lists of qualifications. Although by the second or third century the office of overseer/bishop had evolved into a singular office of one overseer presiding over a number of elders, this was not true in the NT, where these two titles apparently were different names for the same office. Several passages indicate this relationship. In Acts 20:17 Paul calls specifically for the “elders” of the church, yet in Acts 20:28 he refers to them as “overseers.” In similar fashion, in Titus 1:5–9 Paul tells Titus to “appoint elders in every town” but then apparently goes on to speak of them as “overseers.” Peter does the same thing in 1 Pet. 5:1–2, where he describes them first as “elders” and then as “overseers.” The key to understanding this relationship is to see that the term “elder” comes from their Jewish heritage and reflects the qualifications for this office (someone who is older and more mature), whereas the term “overseer” comes from a Greek background and refers more to their job description (they are to oversee and take responsibility for leadership).

Deacon. Deacons provide practical, hands-on ministry in the local church. Interestingly, the classic passage on this office, Acts 6:1–6, never uses the actual noun “deacon” (diakonos). Instead, other forms of this word are used: “to wait on tables” (diakoneō [v. 2]) and “the ministry [lit., ‘service’] of the word” (diakonia [v. 4]). This word group is used frequently to refer to nonreligious service, such as Martha’s meal preparation (Luke 10:40) or in reference to a servant or attendant in one of Jesus’ parables (e.g., Matt. 22:13). Originally, the term “deacon” simply meant “servant.” In the development of the NT church, it gradually became a technical term used to refer to a specific office, such as in Paul’s greeting in Phil. 1:1 and in the list of qualifications in 1 Tim. 3:8–13. The standard understanding of the deacons in the NT church structure is that they assisted the elders/overseers in practical ways (probably on the model of the seven men in Acts 6).

Pastor. Pastors, surprisingly, show up only a single time in most English translations, in Eph. 4:11, where Paul describes how Christ “gave . . . pastors and teachers.” “Pastor” (poimēn) means “shepherd,” and although the noun appears in this sense of a church leader only here, the verb “to shepherd” (poimainō) occurs also in Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2. This shepherding role is associated with the elders/overseers. We see this in Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, where he calls them “elders” (v. 17) and “overseers” (v. 28) and tells them how they are to “be shepherds of the church of God” (v. 28). Peter does the same thing in 1 Pet. 5:1–2, where he calls them “elders” (v. 1) and then calls them “overseers” and tells them to “be shepherds of God’s flock” (v. 2).

Teacher. Teachers are mentioned among those with various spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12:28–29 and are connected with pastors in Eph. 4:11, apparently as a single combined office.

Evangelist. Evangelists are mentioned in the list of specially gifted individuals in Eph. 4:11, in relationship to Philip the evangelist in Acts 21:8, and as part of the job description for Timothy in 2 Tim. 4:5 (“do the work of an evangelist”).

Polygamy

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

Theology of Marriage

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

Marriage in the Old Testament

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

Marriage in the New Testament

Symbolic Use of Marriage

Second Coming

Jesus’ personal return to earth at the end of history. Three main Greek terms are used in the NT to describe this event: parousia, apokalypsis, and epiphaneia. The word parousia means “presence” or “arrival” and was used in ancient times to describe the arrival of a ruler or king (e.g., Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8; James 5:7–8; 2 Pet. 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28). The term apokalypsis refers to an “unveiling” or “revealing” of Jesus Christ at the end of the age (Rom. 2:5; 1 Cor. 1:7; 2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:7, 13; 4:13; cf. Rev. 1:1). The word epiphaneia speaks of an “appearing” or “manifestation” and refers to the visible, earthly appearance of Jesus (2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13).

Jesus clearly predicted his second coming in his Olivet Discourse: “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30). Jesus uses the word “come” in this discourse to speak about his return (Matt. 24:39, 42–44, 46; 25:19, 27, 31). Jesus’ return is also predicted by angels (e.g., Acts 1:11) and apostles (Phil. 3:20; Acts 3:20–21; 1 Cor. 11:26; Heb. 9:28).

The NT describes certain events that will precede Jesus’ coming. There will be wars, famines, earthquakes, and other cosmic disturbances (Matt. 24:6–8, 29). Believers will be persecuted and hated (Matt. 24:9–13, 21–22). Many erstwhile believers will turn away from the faith (Matt. 24:10–13; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; 2 Pet. 3:3–4). There will be false messiahs and false prophets who will deceive many through signs and wonders (Matt. 24:11, 23–26). The “man of lawlessness” (sometimes referred to as the antichrist) will be revealed (2 Thess. 2:1–12). In addition, the gospel will be preached to all nations (Matt. 24:14).

Although Jesus’ coming is certain, its exact time is uncertain in the sense that it cannot be predicted. Jesus himself said, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36 [cf. Acts 1:7; 3:21; 2 Pet. 3:4, 8–9]).

When Jesus comes again, his return will be visible to all, like “lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west” (Matt. 24:27). The last trumpet will announce his coming in awesome power and great glory with his holy angels (Matt. 16:27; 24:30–31; 25:31; 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:7; 2:8; Jude 14). His coming will also be sudden and unexpected, “like a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:1–2; see also Matt. 24:37–39, 43–44; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 16:15).

Jesus will come again for several reasons. He will raise the dead (John 5:28–29; 1 Cor. 15:22–23, 52; 1 Thess. 4:16) and separate the wicked from the righteous (Matt. 24:40–41; 25:31–32). He will transform the bodies of believers into glorious resurrection bodies (1 Cor. 15:51–53; Phil. 3:20–21), gather his followers to himself (1 Thess. 4:17; 2 Thess. 2:1), and reward them for their faithfulness (Matt. 16:27; 24:46–47; 1 Thess. 2:19; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 22:12). The believer’s suffering will be replaced with the Lord’s praise (2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:7; 4:13) and the full experience of salvation (Heb. 9:28). By contrast, Jesus’ second advent means wrath for the wicked (Matt. 24:51; Rom. 2:5; 2 Thess. 1:8–9; Jude 15; Rev. 20:11–15) and destruction for God’s enemies (1 Cor. 15:25–26; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:11–21; 20:7–10).

Since his coming is imminent but its timing uncertain, believers should eagerly expect his return (1 Cor. 1:7; 11:26; 16:22; Phil. 3:20; James 5:7–8; Rev. 22:20). Remaining watchful and ready consists of being faithfully engaged in doing what Jesus instructed (Matt. 24:46; 25:14–30; 1 John 2:28), even if this means suffering (Matt. 24:13; 1 Pet. 1:6–7). Believers are called to live holy and blameless lives in anticipation of meeting Jesus face-to-face (1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23; 1 Tim. 6:14; 1 Pet. 1:13; 2 Pet. 3:11–14; 1 John 2:28–29; 3:2–3). The promise of Jesus’ return is a motivation for mission (2 Tim. 4:1–2; 2 Pet. 3:12) and obedience (Rev. 22:7, 12, 17). It is, in short, the “blessed hope” of the believer (Titus 2:13).

Vocation

Showing 1 to 50 of274 results

1. Living in God

Illustration

Thomas Kepler

In A Journey with the Saints, Thomas S. Kepler has written: "The secret of the revolution in the lives of the saints lies in the fact that their lives are centered in God. They never seem hurried, they have a large leisure, they trouble little about their influence; they refer the smallest things to God. They live in God." That is the great secret to successful living: the realization that when one reserves time to come to God's banquet, all of the rest of life will fall in place.

2. Diverted by Lesser Things

Illustration

Julian M. Aldridge

Some years ago, Hollywood produced an exciting film titled The Bridge on the River Kwai. The setting was during the Second World War in a Japanese Concentration Camp for prisoners of war. One of the prisoners, the Senior British Officer, talked the Japanese into letting the prisoners build a bridge over the River Kwai. The officer realized that it would boost morale, give life some purpose, engender hope if the men had something to which they were committed each day.

The work proceeded to the point of conclusion with a bridge that was a substantial piece of engineering skill; in fact, it was such a logistical benefit to the Japanese that the Allies had to send in an expedition force to blow it up. In the movie, there is a dramatic scene when the Senior British Officer, himself a prisoner of the Japanese, suddenly confronts with stark realism the fact that the other prisoners and he had spent all their time and energies building a bridge for the enemy!

There is, in the story, a lesson for all time. We, too, often spend our time and energies in pursuit of, or to perfect, the wrong things. This was the situation with those invited to the wedding banquet in the story Jesus told. They had an invitation to the party of a lifetime, and yet, they were diverted by lesser things.

3. I've Got Religion

Illustration

Ben Sharpe

I think that one of the problems we have with evangelism is that we don't show the lost a true picture of the joy of God's kingdom. Certainly in the southern United Methodist Church I grew up in this was the case. It kind of reminds me of the story of the woman who was visiting the church one Sunday. Not being a regular attendee of the church, when the pastor made a good point in the sermon, she said, "AMEN!" Heads turned to see who was making that racket. Then when the preacher made a really good point, she said, "THANK YOU JESUS!" Folks were getting uncomfortable by then. Finally the preacher made an exceptionally good point and the woman stood up, waved her hands in the air and shouted "HALLELUJAH!" At that point the head usher came up beside her and said, "Madam, what do you think you're doing?!" She replied, "I can't help it, I've got religion". The usher replied, "Well, you didn't get it HERE so sit down and be quiet."

4. Lord, Excuse Me

Illustration

Philip W. McLarty

Luke tells the same parable in a simpler, less militant way. (Luke 14:16-24) According to Luke, the host invited three friends, but each was predisposed. One had just bought some land, another five yoke of oxen, and another had just gotten married. Given the particulars, each had a reasonable excuse. Years ago, a friend of mine put this together in a song and sang it to the tune of "The Beverly Hillbillies." It went like this:

"I cannot come to the banquet, excuse me, I pray,
I've just bought a field, I must gather my hay;
I hate to miss the party, and I know this sounds dumb,
Pray, Lord, excuse me, I cannot come.

"I cannot come to the banquet, excuse me, dear sir,
I've just bought a cow, and her cream I must stir;
I hate to miss the party, all the food and the fun,
Pray, Lord, excuse me, I cannot come.

"I cannot come to the banquet, excuse me, my Lord,
I've just married a wife, and I gave her my word;
I hate to miss the party, and all that good rum,
Pray, Lord, excuse me, I cannot come.

"I cannot come to the banquet, I'm too busy, you see,
Perhaps another time would be better for me;
I know the table's ready, and I feel like a bum:
Pray, Lord, excuse me, I cannot come!"

Either way, the message is the same: Whatever your excuse, the kingdom must go on. God is at work reconciling the world to himself and, if we're too busy or, for whatever reason, unwilling to be part of this ministry of reconciliation, God will choose others to do his bidding.

5. Throwing away Treasure

Illustration

Richard J. Fairchild

A legend tells the story of a fisherman called Aaron. Aaron lived on the banks of a river. Walking home with his eyes half-closed one evening after a hard day's work, he was dreaming of what he could do if he were rich. As he walked his foot struck against a leather pouch filled with what seemed to him to be small stones. Absent mindedly he picked up the pouch and began throwing the pebbles into the water. "When I am a rich man," he said to himself, "I'll have a large house". And he threw another pebble into the river. He threw another one and thought, "My wife and I will have servants and rich food, and many fine things". And this went on until just one stone was left. As Aaron held it in his hand, a ray of light caught it and made it sparkle. He was not throwing ordinary stones but valuable gems, throwing away the real riches in his hand, while he dreamed of unreal riches in the future." This legend summarizes our situation. The value of the Kingdom of God is before us if we will but realize.

6. Don’t Turn Down a Sure Chance

Illustration

Bill Bouknight

One of the most popular places in Memphis is Tom Lee Park, a beautiful open space alongside the mighty Mississippi. If you have lingered there long enough to read the plaque, you know that the park was named for an African-American man named Tom Lee.

One day in 1925, a steamer with lots of passengers aboard sank in the river, just below Memphis. Tom Lee saw the tragedy. He jumped into his small boat and with great courage and determination headed toward those drowning people. He rescued 32 people of them.

But let's suppose that when Tom Lee approached some of those folks in the middle of the river, they had responded, "Thanks, but no thanks. Your boat doesn't look too impressive to us. We're going to just keep treading water in hopes that another boat more to our liking will come along." You're thinking - That would have been really dumb. Turning down a sure thing in hopes that something else might come along.

That reminds me of the people who don't want to accept the salvation offered by Jesus Christ through the cross. They hope that some other alternative, more to their liking, will become available. But the truth is that there is no other way to be saved.

7. Taking Off the Episcopal Robe

Illustration

A number of years ago a Cardinal Lege was the Catholic Archbishop of the diocese of Montreal. He stunned the Roman Catholic Church by announcing he was stepping down from his position, taking off his Episcopal robe, to go serve in a leper colony. How do you explain it? Here was a prince of the church going to do the work of the most humble parish priest. Said Cardinal Lege: Only those who love understand me.

We don't need robes of sophistication to be in service. When we wear these robes too long, we lose sight of the sovereignty of God and we fail to see that we are but a humble guest at the Kings great banquet.

8. Forgetting What the Voyage Is All About

Illustration

The story is told of the Lee Steamboat Company carrying a cargo of salt pork from New Orleans to Memphis. As they passed Natchez another boat attempted to pass her and the race was on. The Lee steamboat captain ordered full steam but it was insufficient to pass her smaller counterpart.

Then the captain got an idea. He ordered that some of the salt pork they were carrying be thrown into the furnace. Instantly thick black smoke came billowing out and the boat increased its power. This worked so well that they tried it again and again. At last, with whistles blowing and flags waving, the Lee steamboat arrived in the port of Memphis far ahead of its rival. But, alas, when the merchants came for their cargo of pork, they found that it had all been destroyed in the furnace to win the race. Is this not a parable of our human predicament. We are in a race to see who comes in first, and in the process we are forgetting what the voyage is all about. Our mission is to deliver the payload, our mission is to be in service to the Master and everything in life should come in second to that. We need to be on our guard less the ox, the field, our work, competition become our excuses for missing the central experience of life.

9. Just Showing Up

Illustration

Leonard Sweet

Director/actor Woody Allen is known for a lot of quotes. But maybe his most famous quote is this one. Anyone want to guess what it is?

"Ninety percent of life is just showing up."

But Woody Allen is famously wrong. Ninety percent of life is what we do AFTER we show up.

Why do we want to believe Allen's computations so badly? We eagerly embrace Woody's calculus because it takes us off the hook for all but ten percent of our lifetime of screw-ups, fall-flats, and melt-downs. It is easy to just "be there." It is much harder to be there for the long haul, the hard times, the big tests, the final curtain.

Just "showing up" at your wedding might get you married, but it doesn't build a living, loving, fighting, mortgage paying, in-law juggling, overdrawn, children challenged, lifetime relationship.

Just "showing up" at the birth of your child might make you a "parent," but it does not make you a changing diapers, up-all-night, learning dinosaur names, cheering at rain-soaked side-lines, doing Algebra homework, enforcing curfews, saving for college, Mom or Dad.

Just "showing up" at church every Sunday morning might make you a member-in-good-standing, but it does not automatically put feet on your faith. G. K. Chesterton used to say that "Just going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car." To be a Christian takes action; it takes a day-to-day commitment to follow Jesus wherever he leads…

10. Ring Bear

Illustration

Leonard Sweet

The five year old nephew of the bride was chosen to be in charge of carrying the rings down the aisle. At the wedding rehearsal he was unusually unruly. He kept leaping out at people, baring his teeth at and then chasing the flower girls. He growled and snarled as he practiced going down the aisle. He brandished the pillow like a pistol. Finally his mother pulled him aside and demanded to know why he was behaving so badly.

"But Mom," he explained, "I have to act fierce — I'm the ‘Ring Bear.'"

Like so many of us that little boy misunderstood just what role he was supposed to play. He thought he was called to be big, imposing, fearsome, large and in charge. He thought he was to BE the "star of the show." He thought the spotlight was his.

But he wasn't supposed to BE a bear, he was supposed to offer the supportive role of "ring bearer." His role was important. The pastor, not to mention the bride and groom, needed those rings down front. But the focus of the wedding ceremony was not on the ring bearer. The reason for the wedding celebration was not him.

The invited guests at the Wedding Banquet (which is actually an invitation to the Kingdom of God) lost focus and missed the meaning. There is a celebration. The party has arrived. The wedding has begun. Don't miss it.

11. Everyone Is Invited

Illustration

Bill Bouknight

The writer Drew Duke recalled from her childhood her second grade Valentine's Day party. Several days earlier a big decorated box had been placed at the front of the room by the teacher. It had a slit in the top. Each student had been invited to bring valentines addressed to friends and to drop them into the box. Then on Valentine's Day, one student was designated by the teacher as the postman to distribute the cards. Earlier that week Drew's mother had bought a package of 35 valentine cards. Drew asked her, "Why did you buy so many?" She replied, "So you can give one to each person in your class." "No ma'am," Drew said, "We don't do it that way. We only give cards to our special friends. I only need four cards. I don't even like some of the people in my class." Her mother said nothing else. Drew signed four cards and put the names on the front.

Everybody was excited when the Valentine's Party began. The girl designated as postman began calling the names and handing out the cards. Some very popular children got bunches of cards. Drew heard her name called quite often and was having a wonderful time. But then she became aware that the little girl sitting in front of her had received no cards. Her head was drooping lower and lower. Then suddenly the postman called this little girl's name and delivered to her one valentine. Her face lit up like morning sunshine. She tore open that valentine, hurrying to see who had cared enough to send it. Drew looked over her shoulder and saw that it was signed "Your secret admirer." The little girl smiled and glanced around the room, wondering who it could be. "But", said Drew, "I knew who it was but I didn't tell. I recognized my mother's handwriting." Her mother had obtained a class roster and had sent a card to every child in the class. Drew learned from her mother what her mother learned from God: that God's love reaches even the unlovely, and everybody is invited to God's party!

12. Pushing Out What Helps

Illustration

George Johnson

There's an urban legend about a doctor who received a call late at night to come to the hospital. Someone was near death and needed a physician's attention or death was certain. The hospital was 30 miles away in another town. The doctor dressed and took off in his car. At a stoplight a man jumped into his car, pulled a gun, and told the doctor to get out. "I need your car. Get out," was all he said. The doctor got out and had to find another way to get to the hospital. When he finally arrived the nurse met him and told him the woman just died. "You are too late, Doctor. But would you go and say a word to the husband. He is weeping uncontrollably in the family lounge." When the doctor entered the lounge he found the husband in a corner. To his great surprise he discovered that the husband was the very man who pulled the gun on him because he needed his car.

Sometimes we push out of our lives the very thing that can help us. It might be the church, it might be the Bible, Christian friends, a nudge to make a clear commitment. It might be taking the step of accepting the invitation to the marriage feast.

13. Squeezing God In

Illustration

Scott Hoezee

In her novel A Thousand Acres Jane Smiley shows readers a highly dysfunctional family which nevertheless attended church each Sunday. Yet this is how the novel's narrator sums up this religious practice: "We came to church to pay our respects, not to give thanks." When faith becomes a compartment of life instead of life's vibrant center, when you're just stopping off to put in your time or pay your respects, squeezing God in between everything else that you clearly value much more highly, then you reveal yourself as an ill-clad impostor. You haven't put on a festive wedding garment, you're still refusing to wear that funny party hat because you fail to realize that the kingdom of God is a high and holy and hilarious feast thrown by a king who has prepared the best of everything.

14. If It Were Up To Me

Illustration

Scott Hoezee

If it were up to me, I'd draw a thick black line underneath Matthew 22:10 and just end this parable right there. If I were allowed to edit the sacred text, I'd grab my little bottle of White-Out and paint over verses 11-14. Because up to that point this had been a fairly lovely parable of grace. Had the story concluded with verse 10, we'd be left with the happy portrait of a succulent feast being punctuated by the chatter of the guests and the clank of flatware against china. That's not how it ends, however. Instead Matthew leaves us with the bitter image of bouncers tossing someone out on his ear. We're left to hear not the clank, clatter, and chatter of a fun dinner party but the sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

If it were up to me, I would have cut the story off a few verses earlier. And I'm not alone: that is exactly what Luke did when he relayed this story in his gospel. So I rather like Luke's version better. But despite what the Jesus Seminar thinks, it's not up to us to decide what Jesus said and so concoct a Bible more in line with our preferences. Jesus has something to say to us in Matthew 22.

15. All Night Long

Illustration

Edward F. Markquart

Many years ago, a friend of mine from church pulled me out into the parking lot to listen to a tape in her car. Darlene Malmo wanted me to hear her favorite Lionel Ritchie song. There was this song about life being like a party, "all night long." She said, "I am going to party all night long with God." That is what being a Christian is.

Some Christian say that it is not right to have such a mood of happiness and joy. Especially when there is so much starvation. When there is so much hunger. When there is so much suffering in the world, it is not right to be happy.

But that is not true. I think of the hymn, "This Is My Father's World" and the great words to that hymn. "This is my father's world, o let me ne'ver forget. That though the wrong be oft so strong, God is the ruler yet. This is my father's world, o let my heart by glad, for the Lord is king, let the heavens ring. God reigns, let the earth be glad."

Yes, in this world there is so much suffering and so much starvation, but it is also a banquet. Joy, in the middle of suffering, is at the core of being a Christian.

16. Fully Present, Ready to Commit

Illustration

Keith Wagner

Several years ago a pastor did a wedding on the day of the Ohio State - Michigan game. In Ohio that is one of the major sporting events of the year. The wedding started about 30 minutes after the beginning of the game. The groomsmen were gathered around a television set in the lounge watching the game. The pastor had to interrupt them and hurry them into the sanctuary. There was a fairly large number of people and during the wedding that most didn't notice there was a man in the congregation with a device in his ear. He was listening to the game during the wedding by using an earphone that was attached to a small radio.

There was no way that man could have been listening to the ceremony since he was listening to the game. He may have been present, but was he really there? Are you really here or are you just going through the motions? If you're really here then you are listening and challenged by the scriptures. If you're really here then it doesn't matter what you are wearing since you are focused on the kingdom of God, thirsting after righteousness and seeking the kingdom. If you're really here then you are fully committed and are willing to make some changes in your life to be a participant. If you're really here you are ready to help regardless of what string you're on.

17. Excuses, Excuses

Illustration

Bruce Goettsche

Have you heard (or used) these excuses?

We need our Sunday recreational times
We have to work
Sunday is the only time we have to spend with our family (and apparently we don't want to spend it in worship)
Sunday is the only day we have to sleep in
I would get up early to pray, but I have a busy day ahead and need my rest
My spouse is not supportive of my faith
I know I should read the Bible, but television is more entertaining
I can't serve the Lord because my kids are active and I want to share all these times with my kids, perhaps when they are older.

18. The Only Bible

Illustration

Rebecca Pippert

It is important to come to church with our hearts prepared. This young man named Bill had wild hair and wore a T-shirt with holes in it, jeans, and no shoes. He was brilliant, a bit esoteric, and very smart. He became a Christian while in college. Across the street from the university campus was a very conservative church, with many well-dressed and beautifully attired members. They wanted to develop a ministry to students, but weren't sure how to go about it.

One day Bill decided to go there. He walked in with no shoes, jeans, his T-shirt, and of course his wild hair. The service had already started, so Bill started walking down the aisle looking for a seat. The church was completely packed and he couldn't find a seat. By now people had noticed him, and they all look a bit uncomfortable, but no one said anything. Bill got closer and closer and closer to the pulpit and, when he realized there were no seats, he just squatted down, sitting right on the carpet. Although perfectly acceptable behavior at a college Christian fellowship group, this had never happened in this church before!

By now the people were really uptight, and the tension in the air was thick. About this time, the minister realized that from the back of the church, an usher was slowly making his way toward Bill. This usher was in his eighties, had silver-gray hair, and wore a distinguished three-piece suit. He was a godly man, very elegant, very dignified.

He walked with a cane and, as he started walking toward this young man, everyone is saying under their breath, "You can't blame him for what he's going to do. How can you expect a man of his age and distinction to understand some college kid sitting on the floor?"

It took a very long time for the man to reach the boy. The church was utterly silent except for the clicking of the man's shoes. All eyes were focused on him. You couldn't even hear anyone breathing. The minister couldn't even preach the sermon until the usher did what he had to do. When he was upon the boy he dropped his cane and with great difficulty, lowered himself to the ground and sat down. It is a moment filled with poignancy. When the minister regained control, he said, "What I'm about to preach, you might never remember. What you have just seen, you will never forget. Be careful how you live. You may be the only Bible some people will ever read."

19. The Duty of Preparedness

Illustration

William Barclay

Jesus' story was not unfamiliar to his listeners. There was a story during Jesus' day that was told by the Rabbis and it went like this:

There was king who invited his guest to a feast, without telling them the exact date and time; but he did tell them that they must wash, and anoint, and clothe themselves that they might be ready when the summons came. The wise prepared themselves at once, and took their places waiting at the palace door, for they believed that in a palace a feast could be prepared so quickly that there would be no long warning. The foolish believed that it would take a long time to make the necessary preparations and that they would have plenty of time. So they went, the mason to his lime, the potter to his clay, the smith to his furnace, the fuller to his bleaching-ground, and they went on with their work. Then, suddenly, the summons to the feast came without any warning. The wise were ready to sit down, and the king rejoiced over his guest, and they ate and drank. But those who had not arrayed themselves in their wedding garments had to stand outside, sad and hungry. They could only look on at the joy they had lost.

This Rabbinic parable tells of the duty of preparedness for the summons of God, and garments stand for the preparation that must be made.

20. Our Hope, Our Terror

Illustration

Barbara Brown Taylor

Several summers ago I spent three days on a barrier island where loggerhead turtles were laying their eggs. One night while the tide was out, I watched a huge female heave herself up on the beach to dig her nest and empty her eggs into it. Afraid of disturbing her, I left before she had finished. The next morning I returned to see if I could find the spot where her eggs lay hidden in the sand. What I found were her tracks leading in the wrong direction. Instead of heading back out to sea, she had wandered into the dunes, which were already as hot as asphalt in the morning sun.

A little ways inland I found her: Exhausted, all but baked, her head and flippers caked with dried sand. After pouring water on her and covering her with sea oats, I fetched a park ranger who returned with a jeep to rescue her. He flipped her on her back, wrapped tire chains around her front legs, and hooked the chains to a trailer hitch on his jeep. Then I watched horrified as he took off, yanking her body forward so that her mouth filled with sand and her neck bent so far back I thought it would break.

The ranger hauled her over the dunes and down onto the beach. At the ocean's edge, he unhooked her and turned her right side up. She lay motionless in the surf as the water lapped at her body, washing the sand from her eyes and making her skin shine again. A wave broke over her; she lifted her head slightly, moving her back legs. Other waves brought her further back to life until one of them made her light enough to find a foothold and push off, back into the ocean. Watching her swim slowly away and remembering her nightmare ride through the dunes, I reflected that it is sometimes hard to tell whether you are being killed or saved by the hands that turn your life upside down.

Our hope, through all our own terrors, is that we are being saved. Sometimes God's blessing does not come until daybreak, after a full night of wandering in the wrong direction. Our job is to struggle with the terrors, neither surrendering nor stealing away until they have yielded their blessings.

21. Thankful for God’s Gifts

Illustration

Jerry L. Schmalemberger

Jenny Lind always spent a few minutes alone in her dressing room before a concert. Her maid, who locked the door and stood guard, has told what happened in those last moments of preparation. Miss Lind would stand in the middle of the floor, her shoulders back, and her head up, draw a deep breath, strike a clear, vibrant note, and hold it as long as her breath lasted. When the overtones had all died away, she would look up and say: "Master, who has given me this undeserved gift, let me ring true tonight."

When we realize what a gift this invitation to God's kingdom is to us, we too will try our best to ring true. We have been invited to a grand feast of worship today, and as we come, our lives ought to be changed. If we come prepared to worship, ready for prayer, conscious of our sins, then worship will be worship indeed.

22. Invitations

Illustration

Jerry L. Schmalemberger

The invitation that we receive from God to the feast is a happy one and one we should not overlook.

A woman arrived late for a wedding. As she came rushing up to the door, an usher asked her for her invitation. "I have none," she snapped. "Are you a friend of the groom?" he asked. "Certainly not!" the woman replied, "I'm the bride's mother." You and I are invited to a wedding feast of joy, and we are the friends of the king.

Winston Churchill received an invitation from George Bernard Shaw to one of his opening plays back in the early 1900s. The note read, "Enclosed are two tickets to the performance of a play of mine. Bring a friend - if you have one." Churchill sent back this reply: "Dear GBS, I thank you very much for the invitation and tickets. Unfortunately, I am engaged on that night, but could I have tickets for the second night? - if there is one."

23. A Fight Every Day

Illustration

Edward Snyder

A board member went to the Pastor for marital counseling. He had attended church for 25 years and was a respected leader in the church. "Pastor, I've got something awful to tell you. I've never told this to a soul, it is extremely difficult to tell you this now, but my wife and I have had a fight every day for the past 30 years of our marriage."

The Pastor taken back didn't know what to say to the man. Playing for time to gather thoughts, said, "Every day?"

"Yes, every day."

"Did you today before you came to church?"

"Yes."

"Well, how did it end up?"

"She came crawling to me on her hands and knees."

"What did she say?"

"Come out from under that bed you coward and fight like a man!"

24. Clothing and Spiritual Change

Illustration

Mickey Anders

Clothing is a common New Testament metaphor for spiritual change. Paul wrote in Romans, "Clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature" (Rom 13:14).

And in First Corinthians, "The perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:53).

In Colossians, we read, "Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience (Colossians 3:12).

Finally, in First Peter we are admonished, "All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, 'God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble'" (1 Peter 5:5).

Being clothed anew is a consistent New Testament expression for holiness and righteousness. The old clothes have to come off and new ones put on.

This text confronts us with the paradox of God's free invitation to the banquet with no strings attached and God's requirement of "putting on" something appropriate to that calling. The theological point is that we are warned of the dire consequences of accepting the invitation and doing nothing except showing up.

25. Hand Me My Green Dress

Illustration

King Duncan

Television journalist Hugh Downs and his wife once attended a function in Washington. When the time came to return to New York, they discovered that their flight had been cancelled due to bad weather. Downs immediately called the front desk and was informed that they could catch a five o'clock train, which was leaving in 45 minutes. Mrs. Downs was showering, and to save time, Hugh hurriedly packed all their belongings, called the bell captain and asked that the bags be rushed right over to the station and put on the train. A bellhop came immediately and got them.

Five minutes later, Mrs. Downs stepped out of the bathroom wrapped in a towel. "Dear," she asked, "would you please hand me my green dress?"

We're not told how the Downs resolved this dilemma, but it reminds me of one of Jesus' parables. "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son," Jesus began.

26. We Didn't Even Have a Horse

Illustration

King Duncan

Huey Long was a very colorful Louisiana politician who had hopes of running for the presidency in 1936. He began as an unschooled farm boy and ended up in the governor's mansion, one of the most popular politicians in the history of the state. Long was born in the central part of Louisiana, and when he first campaigned for governor, he was given some advice about the voters in the New Orleans area. "South Louisiana is different from the northern part of the state," he was told. "We have a lot of Catholic voters down here."

Long nodded knowingly and went out to make his speech. It began, "When I was a boy, I'd get up at six every Sunday morning, hitch our old horse up to the buggy, and take my Catholic grandparents to mass. I'd bring them home and then take my Baptist grandparents to church."

The speech was a rousing success. Afterward, a New Orleans political boss said, "Huey, you've been holding out on us. We didn't know you had Catholic grandparents."

Huey looked at him slyly and said, "We didn't even have a horse."

Don't let anybody mislead you. Around the banquet table of God there won't be Baptists, or Catholics, or Methodists. There won't even be a head table reserved for the very saintly. There will only be sinners for whom Christ died. That includes you and me. Everyone is invited. That's the good news.

27. Too Busy To Build Fires

Illustration

King Duncan

There is a good story from years ago about a top executive with a telegraph company who went on a trip. It was extremely cold outside when he arrived at the bus station, so he went into a local telegraph station hoping to get warmed up. When he got inside, however, it was cold. He noticed there was no fire in the fireplace. He said to the young telegraph operator, "Why don't you build a fire in this place and warm it up?"

The young man said, "Listen mister, I'm too busy sending telegrams to build fires."

The man then told this boy that he was the vice-president of the company and that he wanted him to send a telegram to the home office at once. The message was, "Fire this man immediately." The young telegraph operator got the message. A moment later, he brought a load of wood into the office and began to build a fire. The executive asked, "Young man, have you sent that telegram yet?"

The young telegraph operator said, "Listen mister, I'm too busy building fires to send telegrams."

The point is that somewhere in life we have to set priorities. We have to decide what really matters and make certain that the really important things are done.

28. Clothed with Jesus

Illustration

King Duncan

An amusing story appeared in the magazine, Today's Christian Woman. A woman took her four-year-old granddaughter, Amanda, to the doctor's office with a fever. The doctor looked in her ears and said, "Who's in there? Donald Duck?" She said, "No." He looked in her nose and said, "Who's in there? Mickey Mouse?" Again she said, "No." He put his stethoscope on her heart and said, "Who's in there? Barney?" Amanda replied, "No, Jesus is in my heart. Barney is on my underwear."

I don't guess it matters who's on your underwear if Jesus is in your heart. And if Jesus is in your heart, your life will be clothed in proper apparel faith, hope, love, forgiveness, tolerance and all the virtues of the Christian life. And you will not be speechless at the wedding feast, for you will be properly dressed.

29. Excuses, Excuses

Illustration

King Duncan

The Toronto Star invited teachers to submit excuses they had received from their students. They received these examples:

A student explaining why he was late: "I was kidnapped by aliens and interrogated for three hours."

Another student, telling why he had failed to turn in his essay: "The bus driver read it and liked it so much he kept it to show to his passengers."

Another: "I got mugged on the way to school. I offered him my money, my watch, and my pen knife, but all he wanted was my essay."

Mike, a 14-year old, came up with a "water tight" excuse for arriving at school an hour late with his pants soaked to the knees: "I was just about to board the bus when I found I'd lost my ticket. Since it would take too long to walk to school, I hopped a fence onto a golf course. I headed for a creek that crisscrossed several fairways until I found a likely spot for lost balls. Retrieving three balls from their watery graves, I then made for the clubhouse where I sold the balls for bus fare! And that's why I'm late." Mike's entry won.

30. You Are Supposed to Love Me

Illustration

King Duncan

Frederick William I ruled Prussia in the early eighteenth century. Frederick walked the streets of Berlin unattended, and when anyone displeased him, he did not hesitate to use his walking stick to thrash them. Berliners tried to keep their distance. One time, as Frederick William was pounding down the street, a citizen spied him but too late, and his attempt to slide quietly into a doorway proved a failure.

"You," called out Frederick William, "where are you going?"

"Into the house, Your Majesty," said the citizen, trembling violently.

"Into the house?" asked the emperor. "Your house?"

"No," replied the poor man.

"Why are you entering it, then," asked Frederick.

And the poor citizen, fearing he might be accused of burglary, finally decided on the truth and said, "In order to avoid you, your majesty."

Frederick William frowned, "To avoid me? Why?"

"Because I fear you, Your Majesty."

Frederick William promptly turned purple with rage and, lifting his cudgel, pounded the other's shoulder, crying, "You are not supposed to fear me. You're supposed to love me. Love me, scum, love me!"

Is that your picture of God? Is that your understanding of the Divine? Let me give you a simple pop quiz. When something bad happens in your life, something painful, do you suspect that God is secretly punishing you? When you thank God for your blessings, do you secretly cross your fingers because you know those blessings can't last? One of these days, you suspect, God is going to get you. When you pray, do you try to bargain with God for more blessings because you figure that God is really holding something back?

31. Symbols of Religion

Illustration

King Duncan

A first grade teacher gave her 6-year-olds an assignment. The next day they were to bring in a symbol of their religion.

The next morning she called on Isaac, who stood up and said, "I am Jewish and this Star of David is the symbol of my religion."

The teacher then called upon Mary, who stood up saying, "I am Catholic and this Rosary is a symbol of my religion."

Next came Bobby. "I am [Presbyterian]*," he said, and held up a casserole dish.

Have you ever noticed how often food and drink are mentioned in the New Testament? How about banquets and weddings?

32. If We Miss a Deadline

Illustration

King Duncan

A tough, old cowhand sauntered into a saloon and began drinking whiskey by the bottle. The more he drank, the more unruly he became, shooting holes in the ceiling and floor. Everybody was afraid to take on the old cowhand. Finally, a short, mild-mannered storekeeper walked up to the unruly cowhand and said, "I'll give you five minutes to get out of town." The old cowhand holstered his gun, pushed the whiskey bottle away, briskly walked out, got on his horse, and rode out of town. When he left, someone asked the storekeeper what he would have done if the unruly cowhand had refused to go. "I'd have extended the deadline," he said.

Many Christians have that concept of God: if we miss a deadline, God will simply extend it. They do not take the judgment of God seriously. "I sin, God forgives," is their attitude. They wallow in what Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls "cheap grace." Grace is not cheap. Grace can be understood only as it stands in relief of God's judgment. God examines us and finds us unfit, unprepared for the wedding feast. But by faith in Jesus Christ - Christ, who gave himself for the expiation of our sins - we are made recipients of God's unconditional acceptance of us as worthy, fully dressed. But that grace has been dearly purchased. Our sins are serious business. It is only because of God's great love for us that God forgives us of our sins and dresses us in new, more appropriate clothes.

33. Dressed in our Sunday Best

Illustration

Brett Blair

Perhaps you have heard of the family that moved into the neighborhood and the little country church decided to reach out to the family. When they arrived at the doorstep the members of the church were surprised to find that the family had 12 kids and were for the most part poor. They invited the family to services and said goodbye. Later that week the church responded to their need. They delivered a package to the family and said, "We want you to know that you and your entire family are welcome at our church anytime. We have bought you these gifts and we want you to feel comfortable and at ease in our congregation. We hope you can use these," and they left. The family opened the package to find 14 suits of clothing, beautiful clothes for every member of the family. Sunday came and the congregation waited for the family, and they waited. The family never showed. Wondering what could have possibly happened, after lunch the members of the church returned to the home and found the family just getting back, all dressed in their new clothes.

"We don't mean to be nosey but we would like to know what happened. We had hoped to see you this morning in church," the leader of the church inquired.

The father spoke up. He said, "Well, we got up this morning intending to come. And we sure do appreciate your invitation. But after we showered, shaved, and dressed, why we looked so proper we went to the Episcopal Church."

34. The Moral Character of God

Illustration

James Packer

Why do men shy away from the thought of God as a judge? Why do they feel unworthy of him? The truth is that part of God's moral perfection is his perfection in judgment. Would a God who did not care about the difference between right and wrong be a good and admirable being? Would a God who put no distinction between the beasts of history, the Hitlers and Stalins (if we dare use names), and his own saints be morally praiseworthy and perfect? Moral indifference would be an imperfection in God, not a perfection. And not to judge the world would be to show moral indifference. The final proof that God is a perfect moral being, not indifferent to questions of right and wrong, is the fact that he has committed himself to judge the world.

It is clear that the reality of divine judgment must have a direct effect on our view of life. If we know that retributive judgment faces us at the end of the road, we shall not live as otherwise we would. But it must be emphasized that the doctrine of divine judgment, and particularly of the final judgment, is not to be thought of primarily as a bogeyman, with which to frighten men into an outward form of conventional righteousness. It has its frightening implications for godless men, it is true; but its main thrust is as a revelation of the moral character of God, and an imparting of moral significance to human life.

35. Must Suffer and Be Rejected

Illustration

Brett Blair

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

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

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

36. You Have Judged Yourself

Illustration

Brian Stoffregen

A story related to this text has a group of the very pious waiting in heaven for the judgment. As they are waiting and complaining about the wait, they begin to see some of the "sinners" they knew on earth coming into the waiting room: a corrupt politician, an itinerant woman who had been convicted of shoplifting numerous times, a prostitute, a drug addict, a man who spent most of his life in prison, etc.

With each of these arrivals, the feeling of hostility increased in the first group. They glare at the others. They talk among themselves. Within a short time, words were spoken to those others, "What makes you think you're going to get in with that evil, sinful life you lived on earth?"

"We're relying on the mercy and grace of God. What makes you so sure you're going to get in?"

"Our good lives, of course." They turned their backs to the others.

Time began to drag on for the first group. They began to complain to one another. "If those other people get in, there's no justice. After all the sacrifices we've made. It's not fair."

The Lord arrived. He turned towards the first group, "I understand you've been wondering why there has been no judgment."

"Yes!" they cried out. "We want a judgment. We want justice."

"The judgment has already taken place. You've judged yourselves. By judging these, the least of my brothers and sisters, you have judged yourselves. In rejecting them you have rejected me. You have shown yourselves unworthy of the kingdom of God."

Hare says something similar in his conclusion to this section: "We are defiled, Jesus tells us, by the unloving words that spring so readily from our mouths."

37. Is There No Balm in Gilead? - Sermon Opener

Illustration

Staff

Let me say right off the bat that the two men I am about to discuss with you, are, in my opinion, good Christian men who do a lot of valuable work for the Church and God's kingdom in this world. It just so happens they are both in the middle of a controversy because of a position they took with regard to our nation's tragedy. I am talking about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. On Thursday the 13th, two days after the attack, Pat Robertson said that because of America's pursuit of financial gain, health, wealth, material pleasures, sexuality, rampant pornography on the Internet, secularism and the occult, 35-40 million abortions, and a few other things, God Almighty is lifting His protection from us. Once that protection is gone, he said, we are vulnerable.

A little later in his broadcast he recognized that there are evil people in this world who do evil things but went on to say, and I quote, "It happened because God is lifting His protection from this nation and we must pray and ask Him for revival so that once again we will be His people, the planting of His righteousness, so that He will come to our defense and protect us as a nation." That's what Pat Robertson said. Jerry Falwell, that same night, jumped in a little deeper blaming the devastation on pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People for the American Way.

Now, let me give you a little piece of advice. If you think this, don't announce it on national TV for all to hear two days after a national tragedy. You won't like the response. The next morning a White House representative called Falwell as he was driving to the National Cathedral memorial service in Washington, and told him the President disapproved. I never want to say something so egregious that I get a call from the office of the president. Falwell has since apologized. He even posted his apology on his Liberty University web site, "In the midst of the shock and mourning of a dark week for America, I made," he confessed, "a statement that I should not have made and which I sincerely regret. I want to apologize to every American, including those I named."

I think Falwell did the right thing in apologizing and I accept it as sincere. But, he and Robertson raise an important question. It is a question all of us have struggled with from time-to-time at the death of a loved one or during a particular life crises. We second guess ourselves and wonder if our sins have brought upon us God's judgment and life's misfortunes.

I suppose it is only natural then for us to pose the question at this critical time. So, let's go ahead and ask the question. Is this God's judgment? To answer that question let's first look at Jeremiah.

1. God's relationship to Israel (Jeremiah text).

2. The Church's (and God's changed) relationship to the State--Jesus the new Balm.

3. The Church's responsibility to pray for leadership (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-7).

38. Christ Plus

Illustration

Larry Powell

It is commonly accepted that the first Church Council met in Jerusalem sometime between A.D. 44-47. Acts 15:4-19 relates that a major part of the agenda was concerned with the matter of whether or not circumcision should be required of Gentile converts. The Jerusalem party said "Yes," while Paul and Barnabas, who were not requiring circumcision of their new converts said "No." A lengthy debate ensued, followed by a brief statement by Peter: "And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, ‘Brethren ... why do you make a trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers or we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, just as they will" (10-11).

Peter’s argument against requiring circumcision of Gentile converts was followed by a pronounced silence within the assembly. After a while, Paul and Barnabas recounted some of the "signs and wonders" which God had accomplished through them among the Gentiles. Finally, James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem and, according to one tradition, the brother of Jesus, concluded the matter with an authoritative judgment: "Brethren ... my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God" (13-19).

The Council has decided: 1. salvation hinges upon but one requirement - faith in Jesus Christ; 2. Christianity would widen it’s orbit to become a world religion. The message of Christ was conceived to be too wonderful to be confined to a clique, territory, or any exclusive setting; 3. Christianity, unlike a religion based upon legalism, is a matter of the spirit.

The issue had clearly been what Charles M. Laymon calls the matter of "Christ-plus." "Christ-plus" refers to whether or not salvation requires anything in addition to faith in Christ. In other words, is salvation understood to mean faith in Christ plus something else? Unfortunately, it is not unusual to observe certain Christians who insist that salvation requires faith in Christ plus participation in a specific mode of baptism, or manner of observing the Lord’s Supper, or actually belonging to a particular fellowship. Exclusiveness erects fences. Jesus Christ tears down fences.

John Bunyan in his immortal allegory, Pilgrims’ Progress, told of the pilgrim who set out from the City of Destruction for the City of Life. Pilgrim will forever be known as a selfish and unworthy man because he made the pursuit of his own salvation his chief aim in life, leaving his own family behind in the City of Destruction. Devoted though he was, he was yet misled by the "Christ-plus" attitude.

Salvation is not so much a matter of what one must do, as a matter of what Christ has already done in our behalf.

39. With a Repentant Heart

Illustration

Charles W. Colson,

Believers dare not come to the Lord's Table except with a repentant heart. "Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner," as Paul puts it, "drinks judgment to himself." That should be a sobering warning, especially when the apostle adds that because of this offense many have fallen ill or died. Any pastor who takes the Word of God seriously should never administer Communion without adequately warning partakers. Those who are unrepentant should flee the table rather than trivialize the sacred.

And God does not view this sacred act lightly. Pat Novak, pastor in a nonsacramental denomination, discovered this when he was serving as a hospital chaplain intern just outside of Boston several years ago. Pat was making his rounds one summer morning when he was called to visit a patient admitted with an undiagnosed ailment. John, a man in his sixties, had not responded to any treatment; medical tests showed nothing; psychological tests were inconclusive. Yet he was wasting away; he had not even been able to swallow for two weeks. The nurses tried everything. Finally they called the chaplain's office.

When Pat walked into the room, John was sitting limply in his bed, strung with IV tubes, staring listlessly at the wall. He was a tall, grandfatherly man, balding a little, but his sallow skin hung loosely on his face, neck, and arms where the weight had dropped from his frame. His eyes were hollow.

Pat was terrified; he had no idea what to do. But John seemed to brighten a bit as soon as he saw Pat's chaplain badge and invited him to sit down. As they talked, Pat sensed that God was urging him to do something specific: He knew he was to ask John if he wanted to take Communion. Chaplain interns were not encouraged to ask this type of thing in this public hospital, but Pat did.

At that John broke down. "I can't!" he cried. "I've sinned and can't be forgiven."

Pat paused a moment, knowing he was about to break policy again. Then he told John about 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul's admonition that whoever takes Communion in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself. And he asked John if he wanted to confess his sin. John nodded gratefully. To this day Pat can't remember the particular sin John confessed, nor would he say if he did, but he recalls that it did not strike him as particularly egregious. Yet it had been draining the life from this man. John wept as he confessed, and Pat laid hands on him, hugged him, and told John his sins were forgiven.

Then Pat got the second urging from the Holy Spirit: Ask him if he wants to take Communion. He did. Pat gave John a Bible and told him he would be back later. Already John was sitting up straighter, with a flicker of light in his eyes.

Pat visited a few more patients and then ate some lunch in the hospital cafeteria. When he left he wrapped an extra piece of bread in a napkin and borrowed a coffee cup from the cafeteria. He ran out to a shop a few blocks away and bought a container of grape juice. Then he returned to John's room with the elements and celebrated Communion with him, again reciting 1 Corinthians 11. John took the bread and chewed it slowly. It was the first time in weeks he had been able to take solid food in his mouth. He took the cup and swallowed. He had been set free.

Within three days John walked out of that hospital. The nurses were so amazed they called the newspaper, which later featured the story of John and Pat, appropriately, in its "LIFE" section.

40. Gentle Jesus’ Terrible Words

Illustration

Bill Bouknight

That great preacher at City Temple in London, Leslie Weatherhead, made this profound observation: "Jesus Christ, the person with the gentlest lips in history, said the most terrible words about sin ever spoken. It was gentle Jesus who referred to people as 'lost.' He described hell as the everlasting fire, the shut door, and the outer darkness where there are endless tears and gnashing of teeth." Jesus did not slant judgment and hell toward those who were broken and imperfect, but toward those who proudly refused God's mercies, those who were too self-satisfied to repent.

John Wesley, our Methodist founder, pulled no punches in talking about judgment and hell. He referred to hell as banishment from God. He declared, "There is no company in hell, no respite from pain, no interval of relief, only uninterrupted night with uninterrupted misery. The term of the sentence is forever."

41. What Is Coming?

Illustration

Joachim Jeremias

This rich farmer, who thinks that he need not fear bad harvests for many a year (v. 19), is a fool (v. 20), that is, according to the biblical meaning of the term, a man who in practice denies the existence of God (Ps. 14.1). He does not take God into account, and fails to see the sword of Damocles, the threat of death, hanging over his head. Here it is necessary to avoid a too obvious conclusion. We are not to think that Jesus intended to impress upon his audience the ancient maxim, 'Death comes suddenly upon man'. Rather do all the appeals and parables of warning taken together show that Jesus is not thinking of the inevitable death of the individual as the impending danger, but of the approaching eschatological catastrophe, and the coming Judgment. Thus here too in Luke 12:16-20 we have an eschatological parable.

Jesus expected his hearers to apply its conclusion to their own situation: we are just as foolish as the rich fool under the threat of death is we heap up property and possessions when the Deluge is threatening.

What is coming? The jackal, who feeds on corpses, will attack the Son of Man as he attacked the Baptist (Luke 13:32). That will be the prelude. Then will come the great hour of temptation, the final assault of the Evil One, destruction of the Temple, and unspeakable calamity (Luke 23.29), and thereafter the judgment of God.

42. The Rejected Stone

Illustration

King Duncan

Jesus quoted the words of the Psalmist: "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner..." (Ps. 118:22) Later Simon Peter would quote these words to the rulers and the elders in testimony concerning the good news of Christ. (Acts 4:11) Later he would cite those words again in his epistles. (I Pet. 2:7)

There was a legend that was well known in New Testament times that in the building of the temple of Solomon most of the stones were of the same size and shape. One stone arrived, however, that was different from the others. The builders took one look at it and said, "This will not do," and sent it rolling down into the valley of Kedron below. The years passed and the great temple was nearing completion, and the builders sent a message to the stonecutters to send the chief cornerstone that the structure might be complete. The cutters replied that they had sent the stone years before. Then someone remembered the stone that was different than all the rest that somehow did not seem to belong. They realized that they had thrown away the cornerstone. They hurried into the valley to retrieve it. Finally under vines and debris they recovered it and with great effort rolled it up the hill and put it in place so that the great temple would be complete. The stone that had been rejected had become the chief cornerstone. Jesus, who had been rejected now reigns at the right hand of the Father. From rejection to rejoicing.

43. Your Finest Invitation

Illustration

In coming to church this morning, you are responding to an invitation, and I do not mean merely the invitation of the church, although the church does, of course, invite you. In coming to church, you are also coming to worship, and the service of this hour is merely the context in which you do this. The church may invite you to the service, and it does, but it is God who invites you to worship. It is he whom you worship; it is he to whom you come; it is he before whom you bow; it is he to whom you pray. And you do all of this because he invites you to do it: he has said, "Come unto me," and this morning you do this, you come to him. And he bids you welcome.

As you come to the Lord, in your heart you are saying:

Here I am, Lord; it is I again;
I present myself before you.
Consider me mercifully, I ask,
And look on me as tenderly as you can.
Touch me as gently as is proper,
And give me, not what I deserve,
But what your love wishes me to have.

And God meets you, and you will go away from here this morning knowing that in your heart you have been in touch with him.

Many invitations may come to you from many sources over many years, but no invitation that comes can ever have a loftier meaning for your life than the invitation that comes from God, the invitation which reads, "Come unto me," the invitation to which you make response in your heart just now.

44. Prepare the Way - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

His name was John. People knew him locally as the Baptist. Some would say of him that he was a religious eccentric. Others less kind would dismiss him as being simply a flake. He definitely did not seem to be the kind of "How to win friends and influence people" type of personality to usher in the news of the Messiah's coming. He just somehow doesn't seem to fit in with shepherds and wise men and the other characters that we traditionally associate with the Christmas story. Yet, this was God's unlikely servant chosen to herald the spectacular events that would soon follow. A most unlikely promotions man to be sure, but God's man nevertheless.

From the very beginning everything about John was unique. His mother Elizabeth was related to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Elizabeth conceived six months before Mary. But Mary happened to be a very young girl, indeed almost a child. Most scholars put her probable age at thirteen. It was not unusual for a girl in that day and time to be of childbearing age at such a tender age. Indeed, it is not unheard of even in cotemporary America.

Elizabeth, on the other hand, was a woman who was in the golden years of her life. She had never given birth to a child. You would think of her more in the category of great grandmother than mother. Yet, she and her aging priest of a husband were the unlikely candidates. It's not out of the question today with recent advances in medicine, but beg the grandmother's here today, don't take this as a word from the Lord!

And then there was John himself. Being the same age as Jesus they grow up together, played together, yet as they reached adulthood they were different in so many ways. When John began his ministry he lived in the desert solitude of Judea, a rugged desert wilderness. He fed on honey and wild locust and dressed in garments of camel hair. He constantly brooded over the scriptures, especially the prophetic ministry of Elijah, after whom he modeled his own ministry.

Nor was John a respecter of persons or rank. He had an intimidating personality. For that reason the upper class folk rejected both he and his message. You can read about that in Luke 7:29.

Yet, John gathered a respectable following. He attracted many hearers among the lower class, many of whom received baptism by his hands. John even drew a group of disciples around him, which is significant for two reasons. First, some of these disciples later became disciples of our Lord. Secondly, a number of people began to think of John himself as being the long expected Messiah. For that reason John's gospel felt obliged to specifically point out "There was a man sent from God whose name was John, He came for testimony to bear witness to the light that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but he came to bear witness to the light.

What drew people to John and his message? Well, John was far-fetched. His austere life style was a compelling reason to listen to him and perhaps his strange ways convinced some people to follow him. I think many thought he was Elijah the prophet who returned. But there was more to John than simply a bizarre strange life. John understood that God was about to do something that would shake the foundations of the earth and he needed to prepare the way for that event. He did this in basically three ways.

1. John lived a godly life.
2. John challenged the people's sins.
3. John pointed the way to Christ.

45. Daring Words

Illustration

Larry Powell

The Gospel according to Mark, commonly accepted to be the earliest of the synoptics, relates that Jesus began his Galilean ministry by 1. making an announcement, 2. extending an invitation, and 3. issuing a command. It would be pressing the matter entirely too far to even remotely suggest that the sequence of events was intentional, yet there is a certain familiarity about the sequence itself. As a matter of fact, the three ingredients, broadly categorized above, probably bear a striking resemblance to the sermon you will likely hear in your particular church on any given Sunday: a. the announcement of a Gospel truth; b. the exhortation, with some degree of urgency, to accomplish something in the name of Christ, and c. the invitation to respond. Intentional or not, Jesus began his ministry with a format exceptionally accommodating to Gospel preachers. However, let us take up the sequence as described by Mark.

1. The announcement. The arrest of John the baptizer apparently served as the catalyst for Jesus to reveal the messianic secret. For thirty years, he had maintained a low profile, preparing himself, shaping his perspectives, waiting - waiting for the proper time to thrust himself prominently into the midst of human affairs. At last, the moment had arrived: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel" (1:15). Daring words! He had made bold as a young man sometime earlier in his hometown synagogue to proclaim that the Scriptures had been fulfilled at his reading. The Nazarenes responded by chasing him from the community. He knew full well that there would be a more general uprising against him now by both civil and religious authorities. But there was no choice. The groundwork had been laid, preparations had been completed, John was in prison, and the alarm must continue to be sounded: "The kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."

2. The invitation. He would need help. Passing along the Sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon and Andrew. Without the slightest qualification, he said to them, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men." Take notice that no questions were asked, no excuses offered, no "process planning" nor introspective "objective-setting" dialogue transpired. Mark says, "And immediately they left their nets and followed him." Going a little farther, two other brothers, James and John heard a similar, abrupt invitation to respond in like manner. How do you account for the fact that these four individuals, secure in employment, having obligations and immediate responsibilities, walked away from it all to follow one who had come upon them from behind, no questions asked? Perhaps a part of the answer is found in 1:22 where Jesus is referred to as one who spoke with "authority," and not as the scribes. This particular reflection upon the scribes, implying a certain insipidness, interests us. They possessed authority by virtue of their position. Why did they not speak with authority? Conjecture is risky business, but we have a notion that their recitations were mechanical, unfeeling, and sing-song. Devotion may have been reduced to formalized vocation, and the sharp edge of adeptness dulled by neglect. Figureheads occupy space but command little respect, whether they be scribes, ministers, bishops, church-school teachers, or members of a church staff. One must be more than simply a "figure-head." Perhaps we should each take counsel with ourselves regarding the phrase, "for he taught as one having authority, not as the scribes."

3. The command. Jesus rebuked an unclean spirit and commanded it to come out of a man in the synagogue, "and the unclean spirit ... came out of him" (1:26). Let us note the response: "They were all amazed and said ‘With authority he commands even the unclean spirits’ " (1:27).

Jesus began his public ministry with an announcement, an invitation, and a command, but most of all with authority.

46. The Mirror of Judas

Illustration

Larry Powell

So much has been written, discussed, and speculated about Judas that we feel we know enough about him already. And really, what more is there to say of him other than he is for all times the supreme symbol of betrayal? Nothing, unless we are willing to admit that there was such about his life which causes us to be introspective about our own.

1. Jesus had confidence in him. To begin with, Jesus observed qualities about Judas which were suitable for discipleship. Had there been no goodness, no promise, no ability, Judas certainly would not have been included among the Twelve. Moreover, he was capable and trustworthy enough to be selected as treasurer for the group. So for whatever reason, future potential or ability already acquired, Jesus had confidence in him.

Has not Christ placed tremendous confidence in us? The care of his church, the propagation of his message, the extension of his ministry, faithfulness to our vows. Shall we too betray his confidence?

2. Judas knew how to be discerning. He was not without practical judgment. The care of the treasury would hardly be entrusted to a reckless, emotion-driven individual. Judas was present in the house of Mary and Martha when Mary anointed the feet of Jesus with an expensive ointment. His protest of the anointing is not without merit, inasmuch as his concern was not for himself, but that the ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor. From time to time a similar protest is raised today by those who question the wisdom of erecting church facilities costing hundreds of thousands of dollars while so many hungry remain to be fed.

Each of us has been entrusted with the freedom of choice and the ability to discern. Do we betray Christ by our choices?

3. Judas had opportunity. His position among Christ’s chosen naturally enabled him to produce a positive witness. And even near the end, he had the opportunity to abort his scheme, the motive of which is still unclear to us. Jesus announced at the table that the one who would betray him would dip in the same dish as the others. Judas played dumb, but inwardly he knew that Jesus saw through his pretense. Judas had opportunity.

As members of Christ’s family, we have numerous opportunities to make positive witnesses. As a people who have followed our own schemes and well-devised plans, we have the opportunity to repent. Shall we betray Christ by bungling our opportunity?

4. Judas had access to Jesus. The fact that Judas was able to walk up to Christ in the garden and greet him with a kiss, the traditional greeting of a disciple for a teacher, clearly establishes that he had easy access to Jesus.

The Scriptures tell us that Christ serves as our "high priest," interceding on our behalf, having access to God, even as we have access to the Son through prayer. To neglect prayer and the spiritual life is to abuse the access. Shall we betray Christ by abusing our access?

What more is there to say of Judas, unless we are willing to admit that there was such about his life which causes us to be introspective about our own?

47. Free From the Flames

Illustration

One of the first gospel illustrations that ever made a real impression upon H.A. Ironside's heart was a simple story which he heard a preacher tell when he was less than nine years old.

It was of pioneers who were making their way across one of the central states to a distant place that had been opened up for homesteading. They traveled in covered wagons drawn by oxen, and progress was necessarily slow. One day they were horrified to note a long line of smoke in the west, stretching for miles across the prairie, and soon it was evident that the dried grass was burning fiercely and coming toward them rapidly. They had crossed a river the day before but it would be impossible to go back to that before the flames would be upon them. One man only seemed to have understanding as to what could be done. He gave the command to set fire to the grass behind them. Then when a space was burned over, the whole company moved back upon it.

As the flames roared on toward them from the west, a little girl cried out in terror, "Are you sure we shall not all be burned up?" The leader replied, "My child, the flames cannot reach us here, for we are standing where the fire has been!"

What a picture of the believer, who is safe in Christ!

"On Him Almighty vengeance fell,
Which would have sunk a world to hell.
He bore it for a chosen race,
And thus becomes our Hiding Place."

The fires of God's judgment burned themselves out on Him, and all who are in Christ are safe forever, for they are now standing where the fire has been.

48. Beyond Ambiguity

Illustration

Larry Powell

In the 1500s, there lived a "prophet" named Nostradamus who upheld the Copernican theory that the world is round and circles the sun more than one hundred years before Galileo was prosecuted for the same belief. He was also widely known as a healer, a dabbler in the occult, and predictor of events far into the future. A present day book, The Prophecies of Nostradamus, purports to show that he predicted such specific events as the assassination of John F. Kennnedy, Hitler’s rise to power, the Blockade of Britain, the Common Market, and other far sweeping events. The writings of Nostradamus are, however, exceedingly ambiguous, requiring a great deal of imagination on the part of the reader to even remotely apply them to events claimed as "fulfillments." I personally place no stock in this ancient mystic’s poetic "prophecies." But there is no ambiguity in the prophecies of Isaiah: (1) "Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations" (42:1). Let us now turn to Matthew 3:16: "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my son whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’ "

The servant described in Isaiah 53 was to be (2) a suffering servant; "Surely, he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed" (vv. 4, 5). The entire New Testament is testimony to the "Song of the Servant," and in the remarkable economy of God, the wounds and bruises resulted in inclusive wholeness and healing. Unfortunately, there are those who have not embraced the vicarious suffering Christ as relevant for their own cases. Even on Christmas day, combat raged in eastern El Salvador between government troops and leftist rebels. A Roman Catholic priest claims that nearly 7,000 persons died in "blind violence" in the country during the past year. We will not dwell upon world violence and political unrest here, except to say that there are those who remain outside of the peace made possible by the redemptive work of Christ. But for those who have experienced the power of Christ in their lives personally, they have found it to be a strong potion, even in difficult times.

Slightly more than one hundred years ago, an especially gifted young man enrolled in Glasgow University. Anxious to begin academic studies and anticipating his forthcoming marriage, his spirits soared. But how rapidly the wheels of fortune turn. He was suddenly stricken by blindness, and his fiance, not wanting to be married to an invalid, rejected him. The tide had turned against him in a manner which would have devastated a lesser person. However, despite his adversities, he graduated from the university and went on to become one of the greatest preachers in the Church of Scotland. Not out of his despair, but out of his personal relationship with Christ, he wrote a hymn which we lift in praise until this day: "O Love That Wilt Not Let Me Go ..." Consequently, not only the New Testament, but individuals like George Matheson the hymnwriter and scores of others who have named the name of Christ, affirm that Isaiah’s prophecy has indeed come to pass.

There is more. The vicarious suffering of Christ was (3) once done, for all, and for all time. Such a sacrifice need never be repeated. I have read where each year, beginning on Ash Wednesday, thousands of Filipino Christians begin Lenten observances by flagellating themselves with whips and heavy branches. The whips have sharp stones and broken pieces of glass affixed to leathered ends. Certain others submit themselves to be actually crucified. Their devotion is admirable, but the gestures in which they engage are both barbaric and unnecessary. We continue to sin, yes, but the redemptive work of Christ at Calvary endures, once done for all time.

49. I Am the True Vine - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

It is fascinating to me that in our Protestant religious culture, such a strong emphases is placed upon literal interpretation. Interestingly, Jesus so often did not speak literally, but figuratively. He spoke in allegories and images. He painted word pictures. Instead of literally coming out and saying what he meant, he so often would tell a story and let people draw their own conclusion. Indeed, these hidden messages of Jesus frequently frustrated his disciples. They wished that he would speak literally and not be quite so subtle.

This morning we take a look at one of the "I Am" sayings of Jesus. Jesus said: I am the true vine. Now, even the most ardent fundamentalist has to agree that when Jesus spoke these words he was not speaking literally. Obviously, if we are to understand what Jesus was getting at here, we must look beyond the surface and do some exploring. We have to go beyond the actual words and discover Jesus' meaning.

When Jesus spoke about vineyards, the people of Judea knew what he was talking about. It was an industry that had been carefully cultivated throughout the country for centuries. It was crucial because it was a cash crop as opposed to grain, which was raised purely for consumption. In early America the essential crop was corn, but the cash crop was tobacco. It was, therefore, vital to the economy of the land.

Quite frankly I must admit that I know very little about the particulars of the wine industry. In preparation for this sermon I did some reading in this area and it was really quite fascinating. The vines are a very rugged crop in a way and in another sense it is a very delicate fruit and requires being treated with kid gloves. A young vine is not permitted to bear fruit for the first three years. It is therefore drastically pruned in December and January to preserve its energy. The particular branches that do not bear fruit are cut out to further conserve the energy of the plant. If this constant cutting back was not done, the result would be a crop that was not up to its full potential.

So when Jesus spoke about vineyards certainly the people could identify with that metaphor, even as a person in Iowa would know about corn, or in Mississippi about cotton. It didn't make any difference whether or not you were in that business. You had grown up around it enough that you would still be familiar with it.

But there is something else that these listeners would most certainly know. A vineyard was the symbol of the nation. In America we might think of amber waves of grain, but in Judea they thought of their nation as a vineyard. It was a kind of national identity. Over and over again in the Old Testament, Israel is pictured as the vine or the vineyard of God.

Isaiah the prophet pictured Israel as the vineyard of God. He said: The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel. In Jeremiah, we read God referring to his chosen people in this way: I planted you as a choice vine. Hosea spoke a word of judgment when he said: Israel has become an empty vine. In the Psalms we read that God compares Israel to a vine that came out of Egypt. Josephus, the Roman historian, informs us that over the Temple in Jerusalem was carved an exquisite, gold leaf grapevine. It stood as a symbol of national unity. Israel itself was, in the eyes of its people, the true vine, whose roots ran all the way back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In Jesus analogy, he likened himself to a vine, while the fruit bearing branches here are the disciples. God the farmer is depicted as the one who cultivates the vineyard. He waters and tends the soil, so that the vine is properly nourished. He takes pride in his crop. But this means that he also prunes the vines and removes the dead wood. The grapes hang on to the branches. What Jesus is saying is clear. The disciples should receive their strength from Jesus. He is the true vine. If they break away from him, they will be like unproductive branches and die and bear no fruit. They then will have to be pruned out.

What can we make of this analogy in terms of our daily life? What does it mean to be God's vineyard?

First, it means we must bear fruit for the Kingdom of God.
Secondly, it means there is such a thing as an unproductive life.
Third, it means we must cultivate a relationship with Jesus Christ.

50. Second Coming Nonsense

Illustration

Staff

The first perversion of the doctrine of the second coming of Christ is perpetrated by those I'm going to call "prophecy mongers." You know these people. They come with their charts and graphs, with their predictions and projections, claiming to have special insight into the workings of God in the world, so that they're able to cue us in on just where we are in the divine timetable. And somehow, every political event of the past fifty years fits neatly into their scheme of things. But Jesus said that no one not even himself knew the day or the hour of his coming, but only the Father.

But there is another distortion of this doctrine that is equally vitiating although in comes from a completely different direction. Here I refer to those who, far from exaggerating the eschatology of Jesus, want to minimize it because they are embarrassed. They rationalize it or demythologize it or spiritualize it, so that they can embrace Jesus and his teachings without getting all the supernatural trimmings that go with it. The fundamentalist and the rationalist share a common assumption about the second coming. They both assume that this is teaching we can easily understand and exploit and have at our disposal, so that it no longer threatens us, no longer hangs over our heads like Damocles's word, ready to fall upon us and shatter our pretty pretensions into a thousand smithereens. The fundamentalist over explains the second coming, and so takes away its mystery, while the rationalist explains it away, robbing it of its meaning.

Jesus said, "Keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour." It is here at the point of waiting that most of us have our greatest difficulty.

Showing 1 to 50 of 274 results