Sermon and Worship Resources

Mark 10:35-45 · The Request of James and John

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."

36 "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.

37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

38 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

39 "We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."

41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Service

Mark 10:35-45

Sermon
by Warren Thomas Smith

"For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (v. 45)

James and John came to Jesus asking for preferment! It is a situation as old as the institutional church. I know, for I am heart and soul in the institutional church; I love it. I believe in the church. I readily accept the statement, "The Church is of God, and will be preserved to the end of time ..." At the same time, I see - as do you - the imperfections in the church, and these imperfections are there because the church is made up of people - like you and me.

Preferment has been a problem in all branches of Christendom: Roman, Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist. Yes, and the Free Church tradition, with its system of the congregation finding its own pastor: Baptist, Presbyterian, and United Church of Christ have experienced the same situation. Preferment simply means a better appointment, a choice call to a noted parish, a larger salary, a prestigious pulpit. And many there be who seek preferment, "As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be ..."

Peter had already received a reprimand from Jesus (8:32-33). Now the brothers - maybe to spite Peter - came forward, emboldened to ask for special appointments in the Kingdom: "one at your right hand and one at your left." It was a modest request (they thought).

Leadership

Before us is a case study in leadership models, especially leadership in the church. As a member of a seminary faculty, I see the issue daily. Jesus made it clear to James and John: Special appointments are not handed out as though by a medieval bishop to those in high favor. Quite the reverse, it is the way of the "wounded healer" and "the suffering servant."

There are individuals who feel that a "call" is all that is necessary. Clovis Chappell tells of the shoe salesman who was soundly converted and wanted to make his witness. His pastor rejoiced with him that as a businessperson he had splendid opportunity to share his faith with all his customers. Oh, no! The shoe salesman wanted to travel about the country giving lectures on "The Prince of Peace." Profound lectures constitute a valuable and necessary form of witness and teaching, but such requires a lifetime of preparation. The theme was majestic, but expertise is requisite to address so complex a situation as world peace, to say nothing of that Prince. In brief, leadership means willingness to prepare.

A man of middle age had a thriving business. He felt called to preach, though his background was woefully lacking in the academic disciplines. He was advised, in a kindly manner, not to make a change. Nonetheless, he insisted on a complete vocational transition. Alas, the result was a frustrated, ineffective ministry. His congregations were never satisfied, hence he was constantly moving. His people called for substance and integrity in preaching and pastoral leadership, which this well-meaning preacher was unable to give. Life patterns had become too firmly established for him again to shift to being a student. How much better if he had remained a dynamic layperson, serving through pew rather than pulpit, witnessing as a lay-leader rather than as pastor. John Wesley admonished his lay preachers to learn to study or "go back to your trade." Francis Asbury taught himself Hebrew and records, "I lodged with Mr. Henry, a Jew. We read Hebrew part of the night, and I should have been pleased to have spent the night thus occupied with so good a scholar." Here we see the circuit rider bishop, who had scant formal education, passing late hours at Waynesboro, Georgia, in 1791. Is it any wonder he attempted to "reform the continent and spread scriptural holiness over these lands"?

It is not enough to be called/enlightened/pulled. There are necessary tests whereby the call is validated. A student averred he wanted to be a missionary to China, yet he failed elementary French three times. Common sense ought to assist us in seeing wherein our strengths and weaknesses lie. One who is tone deaf, unable to carry a note, will hardly aspire to sing at the Metropolitan. That same person can have a seat at the opera and enjoy great music to the full - even if personal singing is restricted to the shower. Why not apply the same logic to the form of witness, to the particular ministry?

What are our talents? What gives us the greatest sense of satisfaction? Wherein do we render the greatest amount of good? How do we relate to people? How can our skills be best employed in God’s service? "No one is useless in the world," said Charles Dickens, "who lightens the burden of it for anyone else."

"Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?" may mean the willingness to burn midnight oil, when comfortable sleep, or a party, or TV is what the college student would rather do. Wrestling with the conjugations of Greek irregular verbs, writing a paper on "The Westminster Confession," or drafting proposals for a church-wide Bible study call for painful dedication on the part of a seminarian. Sitting at a typewriter may appear to have little relation to the Cross. Some would term it an easy way, "cop-out" escape. Quite the contrary. Words, often-times coming agonizingly, on a typed page may be the means of someone’s redemption, reconciliation, social justice, prophetic vision, comfort, hope. In the Preface to his book a Cambridge University scholar thanked his secretary for holding up under seven revisions of the manuscript. Revisions call for time, patience, hard work, to say nothing of intellectual demands. It would be easier to go to the garden and play with the children, to wash the car, attend a football game, or take a nap. Frequently these delightful pursuits must be foregone and the would-be author must go back to that unrelenting, unforgiving word processor and pound out frustration on the keys, until the manuscript is completed. It can be a thankless task; but it may be God’s call to make a contribution toward the advancement of the human family.

A Mandate For All

There is a place in God’s Kingdom for every disciple! Talent, skill, personality, age, sex, social or economic background, native tongue - the variety is as wide as humankind - and all can be used. Is Brother Lawrence not a beautiful example, washing pots and pans for the glory of God? "Be not simply good," suggested Henry Thoreau, "be good for something."

I shall always remember that lady in my congregation who went to her sewing machine at the factory, five days a week, to earn her daily bread. Yet each Sunday she was at Sunday school, church, and then came at 4:00 p.m. to prepare the youth supper. And she did it gratis, with joyful abandon, as her contribution to the church she loved.

"Saved to serve" was the old theme of nineteenth-century evangelism. When one was converted at the protracted meeting, the immediate response after baptism and joining the church was go discover a place wherein a witness might be made and service rendered to people. "The expression deepens the impression." The more one shared the encounter with Christ, the greater the meaning for the one converted. An experience of grace was not to be hidden, never to go unused. It is sound psychology; it is good religion. Part of that expression is finding the best possible outlet, then improving, growing, learning.

Earl Marlatt’s "Are Ye Able" became the motif for youth of the 1930s and 1940s. In fact, they sang it to death. Perhaps it exemplified the optimism of the time. Maybe it did place emphasis on human achievement (something many contemporary theologians frown upon), but it did convey youthful willingness to go out and live for noble purposes, and to do battle against slums, war, Jim Crow-ism, poverty, ignorance, and sin. It called for a new age and high-minded young disciples:

"Are ye able," said the Master,
"To be crucified with me?"
"Yea," the sturdy dreamers answered,
"To the death we follow thee."

Lord, we are able, Our spirits are thine.
Remold them, make us, Like thee, divine.
Thy guiding radiance Above us shall be
A beacon to God, To love, and loyalty.2

Far better to have youthful enthusiasm and over-optimism than never to start at all. John R. Mott wanted to save the world "in his generation." We smile, call it naive. But John R. Mott, a dynamic layperson, was responsible for one of the greatest missionary endeavors of the twentieth century. The present World Council of Churches owes him a lasting debt.

Perhaps the glorious buoyancy of pre-World War II was excessive and unrealistic, but it sent out a challenge, and young people sang "Follow the Gleam" with stars in their eyes. Pessimism and cynicism rarely motivate people for ministry. Better to be naive and go out in guileless service than to be skeptical and bitter, sitting around a bar exchanging morbid introspections about the impossible human situation.

Where To Serve

A college student was discouraged, feeling he ought to "go to the mission field;" yet, through no fault of his own, circumstances prevented it. A kindly, deeply spiritual college chaplain - himself a returned missionary - reminded the student of the old gospel song:

I’ll go where you want me to go, dear Lord,

O’er mountain, or plain, or sea;

I’ll say what you want me to say, dear Lord,

I’ll be what you want me to be.3

Suggested the chaplain; sing it this way:

I’ll go where you want me to go, dear Lord,

O’er mountain, or plain, or sea;

I’ll stay if you want me to stay, dear Lord,

You can always depend on me.

There can be intense feelings of thwarted goals, of unfulfilled longings in the call to ministry. Faraway places seem romantic, even exotic, and there is a thrill and sense of sacrifice. Lo! These remote spots often turn out to be no more exotic than slums in the very city in which one lives. A young man found his Peace Corps assignment bewildering: dirt, poverty, crime. "I thought it would be uplifting," he lamented. A woman asked about serving in a leprosariurn - giving her life to the outcast lepers. She seemed disappointed when told modern leprosaria were not unlike other hospitals and medical centers where patients with leprosy - Hansen’s disease - were treated by trained medical personnel. Hers, alas, was the early nineteenth-century view of going to the "poor lepers" and, like Father Damien, contracting the disease and dying in sacrificial love. Here we make a serious error. Ministry is far more than doing good to somebody in order that we might feel good, in the pattern of Lady Bountiful, noblesse oblige, the Thanksgiving Basket for "the poor and needy."

Ministry means "the love of Christ controls us" (2 Corinthians 5:14). Ministry is "fire in my bones" (Lamentations 1:13) which will permit no other course. Ministry is complete dedication of the whole self to God’s purposes, whatever, wherever, and whoever those purposes entail. We do not pick and choose once the commitment is made. "Are you a wilted flower or do you have a calling?" queried the dean of a School of Nursing.

The key verse in Mark’s Gospel is 10:45: "For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (I learned that my freshman year at Maryville College Bible 101.) This is ministry in its complete definition. Can a mere human being, like ourselves, ever comply? Hardly! Ours is, at best, an approximation. But it is a goal.

Saying No

One essential in ministry, whatever the form, is discipline. Out of discipline comes growth. A sad realization that comes to teachers is seeing a student matriculate at college, graduate or professional school - especially divinity school - fulfill all requirements, and even receive the desired degree, yet remain essentially unchanged. That student may have acquired knowledge, but has there been growth? Has the academic experience been solely a matter of the head - the heart left untouched? Is the graduate a larger person, mature, with insight into life? Has the degree-holder learned compassion, understanding of people, humility, a sense of humor about herself/himself? Has knowledge begun to be transformed into wisdom?

Discipline means saying No. One cannot do everything. I learned this early in my ministry. I always enjoyed drama. It was the Thespian Society in high school, and many roles at Maryville College and Ohio Wesleyan University. It was during an early pastorate that a lovely lady came to me asking if I would prepare a reading for the Woman’s Society of Christian Service, a fun reading. I responded affirmatively and turned to that delightful "The Bird’s Christmas Carol" by Kate Douglas Wiggin. I chose the chapter where the children have been invited to the Christmas party, a lengthy piece, but pure enjoyment. I memorized it, rendering it without a slip, and the ladies applauded heartily. I learned a lesson. I counted the hours spent in memorization and was appalled. I could have prepared three complete sermons in the same length of time. There were other ministerial duties I could have looked after. Acting is splendid for those called to act. I was not called to be actor or entertainer. That was my last reading.

Ministry means "this one thing I do," that singleness of purpose. One cannot accept every speaking invitation; one cannot join every worthy organization; one cannot attend every meeting of every club in the community. "Do not spread yourself too thin," I was advised by an elderly gentleman when I became youth minister in Milton, Massachusetts.

Reality

Ministry brings one down to earth. It is not always the one with the best ideas, but the one who has the idea. An important church meeting was in progress. A youthful, minor executive made a proposal. The presiding officer, along with the entire committee, brushed aside the recommendation as though it had not been mentioned. An hour later an important personage arrived, late as usual, and in pontifical voice made a proposal. It was verbatim what the young executive had suggested. Chairperson and all joined in chorus: the best idea that had been suggested all morning!

A discussion was held at a Learned Society. A youth got the floor, was told he had two minutes, and those present started looking at watches, checking agenda, whispering. Prompted by what the yough had said, a noted scholar rose. All listened with rapt attention as the minutes ticked away, and away, and away! It is part of life. A moderator speaks and people listen; a housewife makes a comment and everyone is otherwise engaged. The Convention’s president may write what she/he wills and it is published. A student submits an article and is lucky to have it appear in reduced form.

James and John wanted to jump ahead to those positions which only come with time and to

"those for whom it has been prepared." The young upstart often deserves a put-down. Rashness can be insufferable, and who but the neophyte can be the "wise of the earth"? Leave it to the sophomore to outdo everyone in opinions. Truth to tell: We often have to wait, and rightly so. James and John had to.

Preferment

As a young soldier, John Fletcher had an uncontrollable temper. In time that soldier was converted, soundly so. He became one of God’s choice instruments. An ordained Anglican priest, he served for 25 years as vicar in remote, rural Madley: no honors, no wealth, no publicity. The recognitions most folk hope for seem to have passed him by. His Checks to Antinomianism should have resulted in laudatory notice. No! Here he was, a brilliant mind, a Christlike spirit, confined in a nondescript parish.

The American Revolution hit the scene. Being a loyal Tory, Fletcher published several articles supporting the British government. By chance one of these publications was given to a high government official who, impressed by what he read, took it to the Lord Chancellor. In turn the publication was placed in the hands of the King himself. George III was delighted and dispatched an envoy to Madley. Was there an preferment in the church which might tempt Mr. Fletcher? Could the Chancellor render any special service? Here was Fletcher’s long-awaited opportunity. He could name it: an outstanding pulpit? A comfortable pension? Perchance a deanship? The King of England had made the offer. It was the chance of a lifetime. Fletcher’s answer, "I want nothing, but more grace."4

A Word From A Prince Of The Church

To all who aspire for preferment, to those who dream of high offices in the church, hear the words which Shakespeare gives to the dying Cardinal Wolsey:

Farewell! a long farewell, to all my greatness!
This is the state of man: to-day he puts forth
The tender leaves of hopes; to-morrow blossoms
And bears his blushing honours thick upon him;
The third day comes afrost, a killing frost;
And, when he thinks, good easy man, full surely
His greatness is a-ripening, nips his root,
And then he falls, as I do. I have ventured,
Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders,
This many summers in a sea of glory,
But far beyond my depth: my high-blown pride
At length broke under me, and now has left me,
Weary and old with service, to the mercy
Of a rude stream, that must for ever hide me.
Vain pomp and glory of this world, I hate ye:
I feel my heart new open’d. O! how wretched
Is that poor man that hangs on prince’s favours!
There is, betwixt that smile we would aspire to,
That sweet aspect of princes, and their ruin,
More pangs and fears than wars or women have -
And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer,
Never to hope again.5

Wolsey’s parting advice to young Cromwell may be good advice to all: "I charge thee, fling away ambition: By that sin fell the angels." A dying Cardinal then made his last confession:

Had I but served my God with half the zeal
I served my king, he would not in mine age
Have left me naked to mine enemies.

1. Elmer T. Clark, ed. The Journal and Letters of Francis Asbury (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1958), Journal I:669.

2. The Book of Hymns, number 413.

3. The Cokesbury Worship Hymnal (Nashville: Abingdon, 1981), number 142.

4. See Warren Thomas Smith, "Justice and Grace" in The Upper Room Disciplines 1976 (Nashville: The Upper Room, 1976).

5. King Henry VIII, Act III, scene 2.

6. Ibid.

CSS Publishing Co., Inc., Journey In Faith, by Warren Thomas Smith

Overview and Insights · Following the Suffering Messiah #3 (10:32–45)

Overview: Jesus leads the way to Jerusalem. The crowds are astonished, while the disciples are afraid. Something big is about to happen. For the third time Jesus announces his approaching passion. He will be betrayed, condemned by the Jewish leaders, and tortured and killed by the gentiles, but three days later he will rise (10:33–34). What happens next makes us drop our jaws in disbelief. Not only do the disciples not get it, James and John have the gall to ask for the seats of honor when Jesus sets up his kingdom (10:35–37). Jesus flatly tells them that they don’t know what they are asking, since they have omitted suffering (symbolized by “the cup” and “the baptism”) from their glorious request (10:38–40). Their boasting in verse 39 reminds us of Peter’s later boast that he would never f…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Mark 10:35-45 · The Request of James and John

35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."

36 "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.

37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

38 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

Commentary · The Request of James and John

The failure of the disciples to understand the way of Jesus is exposed with acid clarity in 10:35–45, where, immediately following Jesus’s announcement of his impending humiliation, James and John ask for fame. James and John think of God’s kingdom in terms of benefits. Jesus, however, speaks of the costs of participating in it in terms of a “cup” and “baptism” (10:38), both metaphors of suffering. The brothers assure Jesus of their willingness to bear the costs of discipleship. Despite their assurance, Jesus declares that the rewards of glory are hidden in the eternal purpose of God (10:40). Disciples are not to follow Jesus because of future rewards but because they wish to be with Jesus—wherever he leads.

The other disciples are “indignant” with James and John for their request of special honor, perhaps because they secretly have hoped for it themselves (10:41). The dissension among the Twelve becomes the pretext for one of Jesus’s most important lessons and self-revelations. Earthly rulers and officials, says Jesus, “exercise authority” (10:42)—and usually with severity. The beginning of verse 43 reads in Greek: “It is not this way among you”; that is, this is not the way the kingdom of God works. Repeating the lesson of 9:35, Jesus solemnly declares that the preeminent value of God’s kingdom is not power, prestige, or authority, but service (10:43). The idea of a “slave”—a position of absolute inferiority in the ancient world—being “first” was as paradoxical as the idea of a camel going through the eye of a needle (10:25). Disciples must practice service rather than authority because it is Jesus’s posture: “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45). Jesus calls disciples not to an ethical system but to “the way of the Lord” (Mark 1:3), the very pattern of the incarnation. A servant is preeminent because a servant gives, and giving is the essence of God, who gave his Son for the sins of the world. In describing the Son of Man as giving “his life as a ransom for many” (10:45), Jesus appropriates the unique description of the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53:10–11. The servant is the only figure in the Old Testament whose suffering is vicariously effective for others. Verse 45 attests to Jesus’s supreme consciousness of his impending suffering and death in Jerusalem as a “ransom for many,” a self-substitution on behalf of all humanity.

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

Big Idea: Once more the disciples fail by seeking greatness rather than servanthood, and the right “path” is shown by Bartimaeus, who centers entirely on Jesus and “follows” him “along the road.” Jesus is central, and here he reveals that his way of suffering is redemptive, providing a “ransom for many,” and ends his public ministry with a call to discipleship.

Understanding the Text

This is the final set of events in Jesus’s public ministry, as the rest of Mark will cover the passion week, crucifixion, and resurrection. The “road to Jerusalem” has centered on two things: the passion predictions (the final and most detailed of the three is here) and discipleship (Jesus calling his followers to join him on the path of servanthood and suffering). So this passage sums up the emphases of 8:31–10:52 and prepares the way for the passion events to follow (the complex prediction in vv. 32–34 points forward to those events).

Interpretive Insights

10:32 on their way up to Jerusalem. Jerusalem, the holy city, is the God-appointed destiny of Jesus where he will provide atonement through his sacrificial death. The “way,” or travel narrative, has been emphasized throughout this journey from Caesarea Philippi (8:27; 9:33; 10:17, 32). Jesus “leading [proag?] the way” looks forward to 14:28; 16:7 (the same verb as here) and Jesus “going ahead” of the disciples to Galilee. Jesus determines the path that believers follow.

astonished . . . afraid. As before, the disciples are “amazed” (6:51; 10:24, 26), this time at the authority and power of his resolve as he “leads the way.” There is debate about whether the “followers” are the disciples themselves or a separate group of anonymous followers (likely pilgrims headed for Jerusalem—a slightly better option).1They are “afraid,” most likely not feeling awe but fear at the momentous events about to take place.

10:33 the Son of Man will be delivered. The first part of this passion prediction has been given earlier (8:31; 9:31), stating that God will hand Jesus over to the Jewish authorities. The rest adds a great deal of detail, functioning as almost a “table of contents” for the events of the passion. The major debate is whether the passion predictions are vaticinia ex eventu(predictions after the event), but there is little reason to doubt that the extreme opposition to Jesus (e.g., 3:6) made him aware of their intention to kill him, and his knowledge of what was going to happen makes perfect sense.2

10:34 mock . . . spit on . . . flog . . . kill him. All four were done by the Romans and look forward to 15:15–25. R. T. France points out that each one “is included in the ‘blueprint’ for the suffering of the Isaianic servant (mockery and spitting, Is. 50:6; 53:3; cf. also Ps. 22:7; scourging, Is. 50:6; 53:5; death, 53:8–9, 12).”3

10:37 Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory. The disciples have not learned their lesson from 9:33–37; 10:15, 31; discipleship failure continues. They still long for greatness and status. The hubris of James and John here is hard to comprehend. Jesus again has talked about his coming death, and they are saying in effect, “Great, so when you die and are resurrected, we want to reign with you!” They have listened only to what he said about coming in glory with the holy angels (8:38). They understand who he is—the Messiah—but they realize neither why he has come nor their part in it. Mark places the guilt squarely on them for dramatic effect; Matthew 20:20–21 tells us that in reality they had their mother make the request, probably thinking that Jesus would have more difficulty saying no to her.4

10:38 Can you drink the cup . . . be baptized with the baptism . . . ? Jesus knew what they failed to realize: suffering and sacrifice were the path to glory. They wanted the rewards without the cost. So Jesus uses two metaphors: a “cup” and a “baptism.” In the Old Testament the cup symbolized one’s destiny, especially the cup of suffering from which one drinks God’s wrath (Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17; Jer. 25:15; 51:7). Jesus’s death is a “cup” in the Gethsemane prayer (14:36). As for “baptism,” the metaphor of submersion is used of a calamity in one’s life (Job 9:31; 22:11; Pss. 42:7; 46:3; Isa. 43:2) or of divine judgment in Isaiah 30:28.5

10:39 We can. In their desire to be princes in the final kingdom, James and John think of the cup as the golden goblet of royalty, and the baptism as an anointing to highest office. “Of course we can do that!” they say. So when Jesus exclaims, “You will indeed experience my cup and baptism,” they have no clue what that means. Yet James will be martyred at the hands of Herod in Acts 12, and John will be exiled on Patmos and will die about AD 96, shortly after finishing the book of Revelation.

10:40 not for me to grant. It is God who is in charge of eternal rewards, and Jesus makes himself subordinate to his Father, as he often does (13:32; John 5:19–23). As the God-man, Jesus is fully God and fully man, which thus involves limitations in Jesus’s incarnate walk on earth. James and John have no right to ask for such places, for God alone decides, and the places belong only to those for whom they were “prepared,” a divine passive meaning that the choice is entirely God’s. The Twelve were promised that they would sit on “twelve thrones judging Israel” (Matt. 19:28), but not the two seats of power.

10:42–44 rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them . . . Not so with you. The rest of the disciples undoubtedly are jealous of the request for power and become angry (“They would rather bear a grudge than a cross”),6so Jesus repeats the warning against selfish ambition from 9:35–37; 10:14–15, 31. They are acting like the despised Gentiles (especially the Romans), who in a patron-client society identified importance and status with absolute authority, “lording it over” others. They must place themselves as both “servant” (diakonos) and “slave” (doulos)—that is, consider their leadership as a humble privilege for them to serve the people to whom God sent them. We are now at the heart of the radical new ethical system that Jesus introduced and demonstrated: greatness through taking the lowest place (Phil. 2:5–11).

10:45 to give his life as a ransom for many. Jesus as the Son of Man is the final model for a life of servanthood. This is rightly one of the most well-known and discussed sayings in Mark,7 with profound theological implications. “Giving his life” alludes to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:10, 12 (“he poured out his life unto death . . . bore the sin of many”) and becomes a virtual definition of servanthood (as in Phil. 2:7–8). This defines Jesus’s understanding of his own messianic mission: he came to purchase our salvation with his death (on “ransom,” see the sidebar).

10:46 they came to Jericho . . . leaving the city. Mark and Matthew 20:29 have the action occurring as they “leave,” while Luke 18:35 has it as they are “approaching.” The answer is that there was an old city (still somewhat occupied) and a rebuilt city (by Herod). Mark recognizes both aspects; Jesus may have been moving between the two. Jericho is the oldest city in the world (from 9000 BC) and was the place where pilgrims crossed over the Jordan and began the walk upward to Jerusalem (fifteen miles away and 3,300 feet higher in elevation).

10:47 Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me! Most blind people had only one choice in the ancient world: begging. Someone says that Jesus is coming, and Bartimaeus obviously has heard of his healing power. His use of the title “Son of David” shows a deep christological commitment and understanding. At the least, he appeals to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, the king of the Jews, so this prepares for the triumphal entry and significance of the passion events. Jesus as the royal Messiah who heals the nation’s sins is likely in this context. The presence of Bartimaeus’s appeal to Jesus twice in the narrative depicts him as the archetypal seeker who aggressively throws himself at Jesus. The more the crowd rebukes him, the louder he shouts.

10:51 Rabbi, I want to see. When Bartimaeus comes, Jesus knows his desire but still wants him to vocalize his needs. The man’s response “demonstrates enough faith to transform him from a blind man begging along the way (10:46; see 4:4, 15) to a person who sees and follows Jesus on the way (10:52).”8

10:52 he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road. Bartimaeus leaves the “roadside” and follows Jesus on the “road/way.” Discipleship is the main thrust here. Bartimaeus’s being “saved” (s?z? [NIV: “healed”]) involves both physical healing (3:4; 5:23, 28; 6:56) and spiritual healing (8:35; 10:26; 13:13).9The combination of faith (cf. 5:34) and following Jesus “on the way” is intended as a conclusion to Jesus’s ministry and of the discipleship theme this far. As with the blind man in 8:22–26, this healing symbolizes the process of joining Jesus on the path of following God.

Theological Insights

Once more the passage combines Christology and discipleship, as Jesus knows that his messianic path is one of suffering, for he will give his life to provide a “ransom for many” (v. 45), a payment that will purchase the freedom of humankind from the bondage of sin. As before, the disciples fail, desiring glory rather than sacrifice or servanthood. The archetypal disciple is none of them but rather is Bartimaeus, who seeks only “mercy” and throws himself entirely under the care of Jesus. That is the only path to greatness.

Teaching the Text

1. Jesus predicts his path of suffering. Jesus knew that the purpose of his incarnation was his death. The meaning of Christmas is found in Good Friday. Jesus revealed this first when he spoke of “the time” when “the bridegroom will be taken away from them” (2:20). He also recognized that his death was to be vicarious, predicted in his messianic office as the Isaianic Suffering Servant (Isa. 53:4–5) as seen in 10:45; 14:24. The purpose of Jesus’s predictions is to prepare the disciples for the difficult days to come but even more to define his death further. It is the Danielic Son of Man who is to give up his life, so his death will be his victory. The theme is an essential part of New Testament theology: suffering as the path to glory. Death will end in resurrection, seeming defeat in absolute victory.

2. Our walk with Jesus is done in imitation of him. Discipleship is defined in Mark as “following Jesus on the way” (as did Bartimaeus), meaning that we are expected to live our lives in constant imitation of him. Walking the path of Jesus is never presented as an easy life. James and John wanted that path to be one of glory and power. Jesus quickly disabused them of that notion. His “way” is one of suffering, pain, and service. To walk the Christward road means to give of ourselves totally, to embrace Christ’s “cup” of suffering, to live as he did for the benefit of those around us, to seek the glory of God rather than of ourselves. This does not necessarily mean that we surrender all earthly goods and embrace lives of poverty (though for many it may mean that). Mary, Mark’s mother, never sold her home; rather, she used it as one of the first “house churches” in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1–10) and Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:4–12) did not surrender their wealth or position in society but instead used them for the glory of God. We are called to place self last and to make Jesus first (Phil. 2:3).

3.The healing of Bartimaeus is “the gospel in a microcosm.”10 As the final event of Jesus’s earthly ministry, this healing story provides a segue to the passion event. Jesus responds to the blindness of all humankind by healing this man, linked to Isaiah 9:2: “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light.” Jesus is illuminating all people with the light of God and is offering them the truths of his kingdom reality. At the same time, the meaning of the passion is held in bold relief by the emphasis on Jesus as the “Son of David,” the royal Messiah. As such, it prepares for the triumphal entry, when Jesus will ride into Jerusalem in triumph as the king of Israel, showing himself to the nation as the anointed king.

Illustrating the Text

A discipleship choice: faith or me?

Church History: Augustine, the bishop of Hippo, was brought up as a Christian, and at the age of sixteen he went to Carthage to complete his education. While there he studied philosophy and abandoned his Christian heritage. Augustine was later offered a position in Rome, where he founded his own school of rhetoric. But God had another plan for him. After a long inner struggle, he once again embraced Christian faith. In his autobiographical work, Confessions, Augustine writes about his struggle to choose to live for himself or to surrender fully to Christ. He felt the Lord lead him to read Romans 13:13–14, and in response to this passage Augustine wrote: “It was as though the light of confidence flooded into my heart and all the darkness of doubt was dispelled. . . . You converted me to yourself, so that I no longer . . . placed any hope in this world but stood firmly upon the rule of faith.”11Augustine surrendered fully to the plan of God for his life, surrendering his will to follow the Lord. What about you? Will your life be about following Jesus as your Lord or about living for yourself?

A discipleship choice: faith or fame?

Popular Culture: According to a 2011 study by a team of psychologists at UCLA, the number one value promoted by television shows for preteens in 2007 was fame. This was a change from previous years (1967, 1977, and 1987), when the focus was on being part of a group.12This focus on fame should not surprise us, for this value is accentuated and modeled for us in our culture. Fame is like a drug that drives people to achieve. But what happens when fame is unsatisfying? In 1988 George Harrison, former member of the Beatles rock band, told Time magazine, “Of course, at first we all thought we wanted the fame. . . . After a bit we realized that fame wasn’t really what we were after at all, just the fruits of it. After the initial excitement and thrill had worn off, I, for one, became depressed. Is this all we have to look forward to in life?”13Faith, however, does not promote fame or any self-focused goal. Rather, it is focused on loving and following God, giving us purpose for eternity. Beware of the seductive power of fame, which, even if achieved for a moment, is often fleeting. Hold on to faith, which lasts forever.

The mode of discipleship: following Jesus on the way

Object Lesson: Following Jesus means to live our life in constant imitation of him. How do we do this? Ask a volunteer to stand directly in front of you and to hold his or her hands out in front. Now, hold your hands up to mirror the volunteer’s hands and explain that as you move your hands, he or she is to follow you. Begin slowly so that it is easy for the volunteer to follow, and then quicken the movement so that there is no way to perfectly follow your hand movement. Explain that simply trying to imitate Jesus is not enough. Rather, we have to live in Christ in such a way that we pray regularly, read his word continually, and submit our selfish desires to him on a daily basis. To illustrate this truth, have the volunteer hold his or her hands out once again. This time, lock your hands with the volunteer’s and begin to move your hands. Because the volunteer’s hands are in yours, he or she will be able to imitate your movement. Disciples join their lives to Jesus in order to imitate him.

Teaching the Text by Grant R. Osborne, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Baptism

The initiatory ritual of Christianity. This rite is of great significance in connecting the individual both to Christ and to the greater community of believers. Baptism carries an equal measure of symbolism and tradition, evoking a connection between OT covenantal circumcision and ritual cleansing and NT regeneration and redemption.

The immediate precursor of Christian baptism was the baptism of John the Baptist (Mark 1:4 pars.), a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, preparing the hearts of the people for the coming Messiah. But when Jesus himself was baptized by John to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15) and to allow Jesus to identify with sinful humanity, he became the firstfruits of the new covenant. John emphasized that his baptism with water was inferior to the baptism “with the Holy Spirit and fire” that Jesus would bring (Matt. 3:11). Jesus’ disciples continued John’s baptism during his earthly ministry (John 4:1 2).

Baptism was immediately important in the early church. Jesus commanded the disciples to “make disciples . . . , baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19). The disciples replaced Judas from among those “who have been with us the whole time . . . from John’s baptism” (Acts 1:21–22). Peter’s first sermon proclaims, “Repent and be baptized” (2:38). The apostles baptized new believers in Christ immediately (8:12–13, 38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16).

For the apostle Paul, baptism represents a participation in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul writes, “Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:3–4); “In him you were . . . buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12).

Cup

In the book of Psalms, “cup” signifies a person’s divinely appointed lot in life (16:5 6; 23:5). The “cup of salvation” (Ps. 116:13) alludes to the wine poured out as part of the thank offering (Num. 28:7–8).

The most important theological use is the mainly prophetic (but also psalmic [e.g., Ps. 75:8]) image of the cup of God’s wrath that wicked nations will drink (e.g., Isa. 51:17–23; Jer. 25:15–17, 28). The book of Revelation takes up this image (14:10; 16:19; 17:4; 18:6). This OT usage also stands behind the “cup” that Jesus must drink, to which he refers in the prediction of his death (Mark 10:38–39) and in his prayer in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:36; cf. John 18:11: “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”). On the cross, Jesus as the substitute for sinners bore God’s wrath.

Gentiles

The word “Gentiles” is often used to translate words meaning “nations” or “peoples.”

In general, within the OT, Gentiles are not God’s people. God chose Israel to be his people, not other nations (Deut. 7:6 8; 10:15; 26:18–19). Israelite ancestry determines membership in the covenant people. Some writings thus forbid Gentiles from becoming part of God’s people (Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13).

The OT more commonly envisions Gentiles experiencing covenant blessing through Israel if they functionally become Israelites by keeping the law, including the parts we understand as ceremonial-ritual law. The law is that special life-giving and regulating aspect of the covenant that God revealed to Israel, which defines Israel (Lev. 18:1–5; 20:22–26; Deut. 4:1–8, 32–40; 6:24–25; 8:1–6; 10:12–11:32; 30:11–20; Josh. 1:7–9; Neh. 9:29; Pss. 119; 147:19–20; Ezek. 20:9–13, 21).

Such law/Israel-centered conditions for Gentiles relate to a broader OT understanding: God will reach and restore the world through Israel, the locus of his saving activity. God will bless the nations in and through Abraham’s descendants, Israel (Gen. 12:1–3; 17:4–6; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). This covenant specifically involves keeping the law (e.g., circumcision [Gen. 17:9–14]). Some passages depict this happening through the nations being subject to Israel (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:9, 17–19; Isa. 11:10–16; 14:2; 54:3). In other passages the nations will be blessed by Israel’s God as they come to Israel, bring back exiled Israel, serve Israel, present Israel with their own wealth, and/or fear Israel’s God (Isa. 45:23; 49:22–23; 51:4–5; 55:5; 60:3–16; 61:5–6; 66:12–13, 18–21; Mic. 7:12–17; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23). Other passages further elucidate the law-defined nature of such Gentile participation in the God of Israel’s salvation (Exod. 12:48; Isa. 56:1–8; Jer. 12:14–17; Zech. 14:16–21). The portrait of the nations “flowing” up the mountain of God associates Gentile participation in God’s salvation explicitly with the law (Isa. 2:2–5; Mic. 4:1–5).

Situating Jesus and early Christianity within this matrix of Gentile sensitivities is illuminating. As the Jesus movement spread across the Mediterranean, proclaiming the ultimate salvation of the God of Israel in and through Jesus the Messiah, questions about how Gentiles experience this salvation of the Jewish God had paramount importance.

Some Christians, in line with traditional readings of the OT, thought that Gentiles must keep the law, becoming Jews to experience the God of Israel’s salvation in Jesus (Acts 11:1–3; 15:1, 5; Paul’s opponents in Galatia). Gentiles, after all, were separated from God and his salvation promises to Israel (Rom. 9:4–5; Eph. 2:11–13; 1 Pet. 2:10). They stood under God’s condemnation, especially because they were controlled by their passions and sin, lacking self-mastery and the ability to live rightly (Rom. 1:18–32; Eph. 4:17–19; 1 Thess. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:14, 18).

However, various NT authors, such as Paul, contend that Gentiles need not keep the law, functionally becoming Jews, in order to participate in God’s ultimate salvation in Jesus. Christ, the climax of Israel itself, has replaced the law’s centrality and ultimacy with himself and his death and resurrection (Rom. 10:4). Through being united to Christ by the Spirit, Gentiles are, apart from the law, grafted into true, redefined Israel and become Abraham’s descendants, inheriting God’s promised salvation for Israel (Rom. 3:21–4:25; 8:1–17; 9:30–10:17; 11:13–32; Gal. 2:11–4:7; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:4–6). In Christ, by the Spirit, Gentiles attain self-mastery over their passions and sin and thus live rightly before God, inheriting the kingdom of God in Christ (Rom. 6:1–8:30; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; Gal. 5:16–26; 1 Thess. 4:3–8). Various NT writings thus reconfigure the situation of Gentiles with respect to Israel’s God because of what God did in Christ.

Debates about Gentiles, the law, salvation, and what Christ means for these issues persisted after Paul. Early Christians lacked an unequivocal saying from Jesus on the matter, and not all accepted Paul and some other NT writings.

Glory

The tangible presence of God, experienced as overwhelming power and splendor. The main Hebrew word referring to glory, kabod, has the root meaning “heavy” (1 Sam. 4:18), which in other contexts can mean “intense” (Exod. 9:3; NIV: “terrible”), “wealthy” (i.e., “heavy in possessions” [Gen. 13:2]), and “high reputation” (Gen. 34:19; NIV: “most honored”). When used of God, it refers to his person and his works. God reveals his glory to Israel and to Egypt at the crossing of the sea (Exod. 14:4, 17 19). He carefully reveals his glory to Moses after Israel’s sin with the golden calf in order to assure him that he will not abandon them (33:12–23).

In the NT the glory of God is made real in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:14; Heb. 1:3). He is, after all, the very presence of God. When he returns on the clouds, he will fully reveal God’s glory (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27).

James

The name “James” is a form of the name “Jacob” (Heb. Ya’aqob; Gk. Iakōbos), which was very popular in the first century. In the NT there are five individuals named “James.”

(1) James the son of Zebedee and the older brother of John. He was martyred by Herod Agrippa I in AD 40 (Mark 1:19; 3:17; Acts 12:2).

(2) James the son of Alphaeus we know very little about other than that he is consistently listed among the disciples (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).

(3) James “the younger” (Mark 15:40), whose mother, named “Mary,” appears in Mark 16:1 just as the “mother of James.” In church tradition, he is sometimes identified with James the son of Alphaeus.

(4) James the father of Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) is mentioned only to distinguish this Judas from Judas Iscariot.

(5) James the brother of Jesus was an early leader of the Jerusalem church (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13 31; 21:18; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12; Jude 1). A number of Jesus’ family members became prominent leaders in the early Christian movement in Palestine, James being the most prominent.

John

A common name in first-century Judaism. The Greek name Iōannēs comes from the Hebrew name “Yohanan.” (1) The Baptist or Baptizer, he was the son of the priest Zechariah and Elizabeth. (See John the Baptist.) (2) The son of Zebedee, he was an apostle originally belonging to the inner circle of the twelve main disciples of Jesus. (See John the Apostle.) (3) John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10) and the son of Mary (Acts 12:12). (See Mark, John.) (4) The elder. Both 2 John and 3 John claim authorship by “the elder” (2 John 1; 3 John 1). Traditionally, all three Johannine Letters, the Gospel of John, and sometimes the Revelation of John have been attributed to John the apostle. However, modern scholarship often attributes 2 John and 3 John, and sometimes 1 John, to “the elder”—John the elder. (5) The seer, the author of the book of Revelation (see 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). Some scholars ascribe the authorship of Revelation to John the apostle, in line with the view of the church father Irenaeus. Other scholars ascribe the writing of Revelation to a certain John the elder. The book of Revelation does not further identify the author. However, the author is among the prophets, a seer, and his name is “John”—hence, John the seer.

Minister

In the NT the most common word used for “minister” is diakonos (e.g., 2 Cor. 3:6), and for “ministry,” diakonia (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:15 [NIV: “service”]). These words function as umbrella terms for NT writers to describe the whole range of ministries performed by the church. They can describe either a special ministry performed by an official functionary (1 Cor. 3:5) or one performed by any believer (Rev. 2:19). In the early church, ministry was based not on institutional hierarchies but on services performed (1 Tim. 3:1 13).

The ministry of Jesus. The church’s mind-set flows out of the way in which Jesus understood his ministry. He described his ministry pattern as that of serving (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:4–17). Thus, he called his disciples to follow a model of leadership in the new community that did not elevate them above others (Matt. 20:20–28; 23:8–12; cf. 1 Pet. 5:3).

Jesus’ ministry provides the paradigm for the ministry of the church. The NT writers describe the threefold ministry of Jesus as preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14, 21–22, 39; Acts 10:36–38). The disciples carried on the earthly ministry of Jesus by the power of the Spirit. They too engaged in preaching, teaching, and healing (Matt. 10:7–8; 28:19–20).

The ministry of the church. The church, because it is the body of Christ, continues these ministry responsibilities. In 1 Pet. 4:10–11 is a summary of the overarching ministries of the church, which include speaking the words of God and serving. As a priesthood of believers (Exod. 19:4–6; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5–6), individual members took responsibility for fulfilling the various tasks of service. Thus, all Christians are called to minister (Rom. 15:27; Philem. 13; 1 Pet. 2:16). Even when a member strayed, it was another believer’s responsibility to confront that wayward person and, if necessary, involve others in the body to help (Matt. 18:15–20).

Although ministry was the responsibility of all believers, there were those with special expertise whom Christ and the church set apart for particular leadership roles (Eph. 4:11–12). Christ set apart Apollos and Paul for special ministries (1 Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7). The church called on special functionaries to carry out specific ministries. For example, the early church appointed seven individuals to serve tables (Acts 6:2). They appointed certain ones to carry the relief fund collected for the Jerusalem Christians (2 Cor. 8:19, 23). As special functionaries, Paul, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, the elders, as well as others accepted the responsibility of teaching and preaching and healing for the whole church.

All the ministries of the church, whether performed by believers in general or by some specially appointed functionary, were based on gifts received from God (Rom. 12:1–8; 1 Cor. 12:4–26). God gave individuals the abilities necessary to perform works of service (Acts 20:24; Eph. 4:11; Col. 4:17; 1 Tim. 1:12; 1 Pet. 4:11). The NT, however, makes it clear that when it comes to one’s relationship and spiritual status before God, all Christians are equal. Yet in equality there is diversity of gifts and talents. Paul identifies some gifts given to individuals for special positions: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11). The description here is of special ministry roles that Christ calls certain individuals to fulfill based on the gifts given to them. The ones fulfilling these roles did not do all the ministry of the church but rather equipped the rest of the body to do ministry (Eph. 4:12–13). No one can boast in the gifts given to him or her because those gifts were given for ministry to others (1 Cor. 4:7). Thus, gifts lead to service, and in turn service results in leadership.

It becomes the responsibility of those who lead to equip others for ministry. When others are equipped for ministry, they in turn minister and edify the whole body (Eph. 4:15–16; 2 Tim. 2:1–2). The goal of all ministry, according to Paul, is to build up a community of believers until all reach maturity in Christ (Rom. 15:15–17; 1 Cor. 3:5–4:5; Eph. 4:12–16; 1 Thess. 2:19–20).

Ransom

A payment made to redeem a slave, release a captive, or free a criminal from punishment.

In the OT, slaves could be set free by ransom (Lev. 19:20), and certain kinds of criminals are excluded from ransom (Num. 35:31 32), implying that others could be ransomed to escape their punishment. Ransom is also used more broadly to include notions of atonement (Exod. 30:12) and as a near synonym for “redemption” (Jer. 31:11 NASB, NRSV, KJV). “Ransom” is frequently used metaphorically to describe God’s saving actions on behalf of the nation (Isa. 43:3; 50:2; Jer. 31:11; Hos. 13:14), saving them from their enemies, or of individuals (Job 5:20; Ps. 55:18), saving them from death. In these cases, the emphasis is on the rescue effected, not the price paid.

In the NT, “ransom” is used to describe the atoning work of Christ. Jesus describes his own purpose: “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 // Matt. 20:28). Paul uses the same language: “Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Tim. 2:5–6). The author of Hebrews describes the effect of this ransom: “He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15). All three references indicate that the price paid for the ransom is Jesus’ life, given up to death on the cross. Each of the literal meanings of “ransom” has its metaphorical equivalent: Christ’s death frees us from our slavery to sin and death (Rom. 6:6), releases us from our captivity to the law (7:4–6), and pays the price of the punishment that our sins deserved (3:25–26). The ransom was not paid to the devil, and it is best understood as the satisfaction of God’s own justice (Rom. 6:23).

Servant

There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2 Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1 Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:1 11; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Sabbath Year, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).

Slavery was very common in the first century AD, and there were many different kinds of slaves. For example, slaves might live in an extended household (oikos) in which they were born, or they might choose to sell themselves into this situation (1 Pet. 2:18–25). Although slavery was a significant part of society in the first century AD, we never see Jesus or the apostles encourage slavery. Instead, both Paul and Peter encouraged godly character and obedience for slaves within this system (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1 Tim. 6:1–2; Philemon; 1 Pet. 2:18–21). Likewise, masters were encouraged to be kind and fair to their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Later in the NT, slave trading was condemned by the apostle Paul as contrary to “sound doctrine” and “the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1:10–11).

Jesus embodied the idea of a servant in word and deed. He fulfilled the role of the “Servant of the Lord,” the Suffering Servant predicted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–4; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). He also took on the role of a servant in the Gospels, identifying himself as the Son of Man who came to serve (Mark 10:45) and washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:4–5). Paul says that in the incarnation Jesus took on “the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7).

The special relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured in the servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’s letters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses not so much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegiance and honor owed to Christ Jesus.

Son of Man

In the OT, the phrase “son of man” usually refers to humanity in general or to a specific individual. In Ezekiel, for instance, God addresses the prophet himself as “son of man,” possibly indicating his human status compared with God or, alternatively, highlighting his unique status as God’s prophet in contrast with the rest of humanity.

One of the most crucial OT “son of man” texts is Dan. 7 because of its influence on the “Son of Man” in the Gospel tradition. The first half of the chapter records Daniel’s vision (7:1 14), while the second half contains its interpretation (7:15–27). In the vision Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven” (7:13). This exalted figure contrasts with the first three beasts, which are “like a lion” (7:4), “like a bear” (7:5), and “like a leopard” (7:6). The fourth beast is so gruesome that it defies comparison with any species of the animal kingdom (7:7). Many agree that the beasts likely refer to ancient world empires; however, the referent of “one like a son of man” has given rise to much debate. The figure may refer to earthly Israel, since at this figure’s vindication he is endowed with authority and glory. This is precisely what “the holy people of the Most High” receive in verse 27. In this way, the “one like a son of man” is a symbol for the persecuted, earthly saints. Alternatively, the exalted figure could be a heavenly being such as the archangel Gabriel (9:21) or Michael (10:13; 12:1). Here “one like a son of man” is the heavenly counterpart and leader of suffering Israel and fights a cosmic battle on its behalf.

In the NT the term “Son of Man” occurs mostly in the Gospels and, with the exception of John 12:34 (where the crowd quotes Jesus), is uttered exclusively by Jesus himself. Unlike in Daniel, the epithet occurs in the Gospels with the definite article, likely indicating that the Son of Man was a known figure. In first-century Judaism many Jews believed that the Son of Man would return at the end as savior and judge. The OT provides the most helpful background for understanding the Son of Man in the Gospels.

The Son of Man sayings in the Gospels fall within three categories: earthly, suffering-resurrection, and future-vindication sayings. Starting with the earthly sayings, in Mark 2:10, for example, the Son of Man has “authority on earth to forgive sins,” and in 2:28 he exercises dominion over the Sabbath. Although in Daniel the Son of Man does not receive such authority until his appearance in Yahweh’s presence at his vindication, the Son of Man in the Gospels exercises such authority during his earthly ministry. Jesus also predicts that the Son of Man will suffer, die, and be raised again. In Mark, these suffering-resurrection predictions occur three times (8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34). Echoing Dan. 7, this plight of Jesus recalls the suffering of the holy ones caused by the little horn (v. 21). If the “one like a son of man” represents the holy ones in their vindication, then it is reasonable that he does so in their suffering as well; however, the text of Daniel is silent on this point. Finally, the clearest reference to Dan. 7 occurs in the future-vindication sayings. In Mark 13:26; 14:62 the Son of Man comes with/on the clouds, which points to his vindication over the Sanhedrin, the dominant adversaries of Jesus in Mark. Matthew appears to develop even more than Mark the judicial responsibilities of the Son of Man (Matt. 13:41–43; 25:31–33). Meanwhile, in Luke the church must stay alert and be prepared for the return of the Son of Man (12:39–40; 17:22–37; 21:34–36).

Finally, the Son of Man in Revelation is in the heavenly temple functioning as both judge and caretaker of the seven churches (Rev. 1:12–20) and reaps the saints while “seated on the cloud” (14:14–16).

Zebedee

The father of the disciples James and John, he was a Galilean fisherman by trade (Mark 1:16 20; Matt. 4:18–22). Zebedee’s sons worked with him in the fishing business, and he seems to have possessed some wealth, as indicated by his ownership of a boat and the use of hired servants (Mark 1:20). His wife’s name appears to have been Salome (cf. Mark 15:40; 16:1; Matt. 27:56).

Direct Matches

Cup

In the book of Psalms,“cup” signifies a person’s divinely appointed lot in life (16:5–6; 23:5). The “cup of salvation” (Ps. 116:13) alludes to the wine poured out as part of the thank offering (Num. 28:7–8).

A cup of cold water (Matt. 10:42) symbolizes a small deed of kindness done for one of Jesus’ “little ones” that will not go unrewarded. The Pharisees cleaned only “the outside of the cup,” meaning that they conformed only outwardly to God’s will (Matt. 23:25–26). The “cup of thanksgiving” (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16), the third cup of the series of shared cups during the Passover meal (Luke 22:17 mentions an earlier cup), was reinterpreted by Jesus at the Last Supper (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 10:23–29). Paul teaches that sharing in meals at pagan temples (“the cup of demons”) is incompatible with participation in the Lord’s Supper (“the cup of the Lord”) (1 Cor. 10:21).

John the Apostle

John, along with his brother James, was a son of Zebedee and a fisherman, and a disciple of Jesus. He was first called to be a disciple when Jesus passed along the shore of Galilee (Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19–20; Luke 5:10). The fishing boat belonging to John’s family contained hired men, indicating that he left behind a profitable fishing trade (Mark 1:20). Jesus surnamed John and his brother James “Boanerges,” meaning “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17), likely a reflection of their boisterous temperament.

John’s passionate temperament may be reflected in the Gospels in his attempt to confront potential opposition (Mark 9:38–41; Luke 9:49–50) and his desire to bring heavenly fire down upon those who rejected Jesus (Luke 9:54). James and John requested seats of honor in Jesus’ kingdom (Mark 10:37–40). Matthew clarified this event by naming James and John’s mother as the one voicing the request, something befitting the cultural setting (Matt. 20:20–22). As part of Jesus’ inner group of disciples, along with James and Peter, John was allowed to witness Jesus’ actions on certain critical occasions: raising a child from the dead (Mark 5:37–43), his transfiguration (Matt. 17:1–2; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28–30), and his agony in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–38; Mark 14:32–34; Luke 22:39–40).

In its account of Jesus’ passion, the Gospel of John highlights the actions of an unnamed disciple “whom Jesus loved.” John is the likeliest candidate. This disciple leaned on Jesus at the final supper (John 13:23), was given care of Jesus’ mother (19:26), arrived first at the empty tomb (20:2–4), first recognized the resurrected Jesus (21:7), was prophesied to live a long life (21:23), and was an eyewitness of events in the Gospel (21:24).

John was among the disciples who stayed in Jerusalem in the upper room prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:13–14). John next was seen after Pentecost with Peter in accounts of the healing of a crippled beggar (3:1–11) and the two of them being arrested for proclaiming the gospel (4:1–23).

John is said to have authored the Fourth Gospel (John 21:20–24). The Gospel of John was written with a purpose stated explicitly by its author: “That you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (20:31). This “believing” encapsulates several key convictions that the author sought to convey. First, Jesus is one with God as preexistent and operative in creation (1:1–4, 10, 18). Second, Jesus is the messianic Savior to God’s chosen people (1:41; 11:27) and all humankind (4:42). In the Johannine Gospel, salvation is conceived in God’s love (3:16), formalized by the sacrifice of his Son (1:29; 3:16), and received by those holding orthodox belief in Jesus’ divine identity (8:24) and origin (12:44; 17:21). Finally, believing includes the conviction that Jesus is one with God, expressed through sonship (1:19–2:11). In the Johannine Gospel, sonship is conveyed literarily and buttresses the certainty that Jesus is sufficient to provide eternal life. Messianic realities mingled with sonship distinguish Jesus as the ultimate revelation of God, thus complementing, while subordinating, previous Jewish religious convictions. In addition to the Gospel of John, tradition attributes the Johannine Letters and, in some cases, the Revelation of John to the apostle John.

John the apostle is understood in his older days to have been a member of a community with disciples of his own, commonly known as the Johannine Community. Within this community the teachings of John about Jesus were preserved and written down. In addition, his correspondence was preserved—1 John, 2 John, and 3 John.

Minister

The ministry of Jesus. The church’s mind-set flows out of the way in which Jesus understood his ministry. He described his ministry pattern as that of serving (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 13:4–17). Thus, he called his disciples to follow a model of leadership in the new community that did not elevate them above others (Matt. 20:20–28; 23:8–12; cf. 1 Pet. 5:3).

The ministry of the church. The church, because it is the body of Christ, continues these ministry responsibilities. In 1 Pet. 4:10–11 is a summary of the overarching ministries of the church, which include speaking the words of God and serving. As a priesthood of believers (Exod. 19:4–6; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:5–6), individual members took responsibility for fulfilling the various tasks of service. Thus, all Christians are called to minister (Rom. 15:27; Philem. 13; 1 Pet. 2:16). Even when a member strayed, it was another believer’s responsibility to confront that wayward person and, if necessary, involve others in the body to help (Matt. 18:15–20).

Ransom

A payment made to redeem a slave, release a captive, or free a criminal from punishment.

In the OT, slaves could be set free by ransom (Lev. 19:20), and certain kinds of criminals are excluded from ransom (Num. 35:31–32), implying that others could be ransomed to escape their punishment. Ransom is also used more broadly to include notions of atonement (Exod. 30:12) and as a near synonym for “redemption” (Jer. 31:11 NASB, NRSV, KJV). “Ransom” is frequently used metaphorically to describe God’s saving actions on behalf of the nation (Isa. 43:3; 50:2; Jer. 31:11; Hos. 13:14), saving them from their enemies, or of individuals (Job 5:20; Ps. 55:18), saving them from death. In these cases, the emphasis is on the rescue effected, not the price paid.

Servant

Slavery and servanthood were part of everyday life in the ancient world. There were many different kinds of circumstances through which a person might become a slave. Some were coerced into servitude after being captured in war; others were born into slavery; others served as slaves as a sentence for a crime; still others served by personal choice as an apprentice. Slavery was not based on race. Furthermore, there was an enormous range of social and economic classes among slaves, from the brutal life of a galley slave to that of a wealthy servant of a king who might likewise own property and slaves.

In some cases, manumission, or the freeing of slaves, was possible during Roman times. This could be accomplished if the master died or if the master’s will allowed for their freedom, and in some cases slaves could even purchase their own freedom. In the first century AD, there were many such manumitted slaves. Acts 6:9 speaks of a Synagogue of the Freedmen, which probably means that it was made up of former slaves.

Old Testament

There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2 Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1 Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:1–11; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Year of Jubilee, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).

Some slaves chose freely to stay with their owner. Deuteronomy 15:16–17 speaks of a slave who might say to a master, “I do not want to leave you,” out of love for the master and his family. This commitment was sealed by piercing the earlobe of the slave with an awl. This symbolized a lifelong commitment to the master.

New Testament

The imagery of slavery is also used metaphorically in the NT in both a negative and a positive manner. In Rom. 6 the apostle Paul discusses how slavery and obedience to former and latter masters is an essential part of the changed Christian life. Prior to knowing Christ, we were “slaves to sin” and obeyed its power (Rom. 6:16–17); after following Christ, we were freed from the power of sin and death and became “slaves to righteousness” (Rom. 6:18) and “slaves of God” (Rom. 6:22).

Slave

Old Testament

There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2 Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1 Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:1–11; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Year of Jubilee, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).

New Testament

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because Mark 10:35-45 is mentioned in the definition.

Agape

Old Testament

Preconditions to love. According to the OT, three preconditions must exist for us to know what it means to love.

First, we have the capacity for relationships because we are made in the likeness of a personal God. God created us to reciprocate love back to him, in a relationship of mutual love.

Second, the true meaning of love depends on a true understanding of God, whose love causes him to pursue human beings even though their hearts have turned away from him for other substitute “loves.” This second point assumes that human beings still love, but they do so in a way distorted by sin. Sin causes human beings to live their lives as though God did not exist. However, God in his mercy has chosen to intervene through his redemptive acts in history and through revelatory speech in order to deliver people from the blindness and corruption of sin. His pursuit of his unfaithful sons and daughters gives us a picture of what true love looks like.

Third, God’s pursuit of human beings in history was by means of election and the establishment of a covenant. God chose to make himself known to a particular people, those who would descend from Abraham. God called Abraham to leave his country and go to a new place that he would inherit as a new homeland, where his descendants would be blessed (Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 17). God’s promise to Abraham took the form of an everlasting covenant, by which he guaranteed that he would fulfill what he had promised. He would be the God of Abraham’s descendants, and they would be his people. They would receive the land of Canaan as an inheritance (17:6–8). In response, Abraham’s descendants were to obey God’s covenant by circumcising their male children (17:9–14). This covenant would depend not on human faithfulness but on God’s faithfulness. God would redeem this people to be his own special people.

Several generations later, God addressed the people through Moses, telling them that he chose them for no other reason than that he loved them (Deut. 7:7–8). Through Moses, God freed the people from their slavery in Egypt and gave them the law. The law told them how to live holy lives in response to God. It also included the provisions for atonement through the sacrificial system. In short, loving God involved obeying his statutes.

Love in wisdom books. The OT wisdom books Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes give us further insight into the meaning of love. Proverbs exhorts its readers, “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it” (4:23). One’s affections are the gateway to the allegiances of one’s heart. Once one’s affections have been hijacked by sinful passions, allegiance to God is subjugated to another “master.” To the degree that sin usurps the throne of the heart, it will steer the course of one’s actions (i.e., one’s “path”).

In the book of Job, Satan is convinced that Job serves God only because God blesses Job, so Satan challenges God to let him afflict Job. Satan insists that if God removes Job’s blessings, Job will curse God to his face (1:10–12). When God agrees to remove the hedge of protection and allows Job to suffer, the depth of Job’s love for God is vindicated. Although perplexed that God would allow him to endure such suffering, he endures without forsaking God. Job loved the giver more than his gifts, so his love did not turn to hatred when the gifts of God were removed.

In the book of Ecclesiastes, Qoheleth (the Teacher) reflects honestly on the many vain pursuits and unexplainable dissonances that characterize life “under the sun.” Only faith-filled love for God can enable one to live each moment of life with joy instead of striving to find meaning in “under the sun” pursuits. This love chooses to trust the inscrutable wisdom of God in the face of life’s many enigmas, uncertainties, and sufferings. One can do this honestly because of the belief that God’s just rule over the affairs of the universe will be vindicated at the future day of judgment (Eccles. 12:14).

Marriage metaphor. The Bible uses the metaphor of marriage to describe God’s covenant relationship with his people (Isa. 54:5–8). This metaphor captures the intimate character of the relationship that God desires to have with his people. Marriage is the most intimate human relationship in two ways. First, marriage is a relationship in which knowledge is the most intimate. A spouse can see many of the flaws that are hidden from others. Thus, each spouse must accept and love the other for who that person is, in spite of his or her imperfections. Second, the depth and passion of the expressions of love are most intimate in marriage. Consequently, there is no greater pain than that caused by unfaithfulness to this covenant.

Sadly, as the story of the OT unfolds, God’s “wife” betrays him. How so? His people worship idols in their hearts (Ezek. 14:1–5). Because God is jealous for the exclusive love of his people, idolatry is spiritual unfaithfulness. God wants both the allegiance and the affection of their hearts to be reserved exclusively for him. The people continue the formalities of worship, but their hearts have turned away from God. The book of Hosea illustrates the sense of betrayal that God feels when his people are spiritually unfaithful. God tells Hosea to marry a woman who will be unfaithful to him. Subsequently, she leaves Hosea for one lover after another. This story is intended to give God’s people a vivid picture of how painful their spiritual betrayal of him is. His heart is crushed by the rebellious and idolatrous condition of his people. Hosea’s wife ends up on the market as a prostitute, and God tells him to buy her back and love her again.

New Testament

The story of God’s love for his people is expanded by what the Father did centuries later when he sent Jesus to pay the ransom for the sins of his people so that they might be healed of their rebellion and receive eternal life (John 3:16; 17:24). The death and resurrection of Christ were necessary because sin had to be atoned for. This love is a free gift that comes to the one who trusts in Christ for forgiveness of sin and a new heart. The new heart inclines one to please God. The gift of the Spirit enables one to bear the “fruit” of love (Gal. 5:22–23). As Abraham’s engrafted children (Gal. 3:7), believers are called by God to live as pilgrims on their way to a heavenly promised land (Heb. 11:9–10; 1 Pet. 2:11).

Christ modeled genuine love by serving us (Mark 10:42–45). His love should motivate us and enable us to practice sacrificial service toward others (Matt. 22:39; 1 John 3:16). It should also cause us to practice forbearance, long-suffering, and forgiveness toward those who wrong us (Matt. 18:21–35). It should cause us to repay evil with good (Rom. 12:14). Our love for truth should motivate us to act in the best interests of others (1 Cor. 13:4–8) in the hope that they may become reconciled to God (2 Tim. 2:24–26).

Atonement

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bankruptcy

A person enters bankruptcy upon legally declaring inability to repay debts. God commanded that obligations be repaid, but he also established a type of bankruptcy procedure for Israel’s poorest debtors. They could render six years of life in servitude, but creditors had to release their servants every seventh year (Exod. 21:2). Additionally, the liberation at Jubilee (Lev. 25:10) gave the poor some protection against oppressive terms of service (cf. Neh. 5:3–5).

A key biblical theme concerns the kinsman-redeemer, who could buy back close relatives from slavery and restore their land to the family (Lev. 25:25, 47–48). The book of Ruth tells how Boaz redeemed Ruth from poverty and alienation back to Naomi’s ancestral land. This theme continues with Jesus Christ, who came as a “ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). With his blood he purchased the freedom of a spiritually bankrupt people, sold into bondage to sin (1 Pet. 1:18–19).

Bartimaeus

Mark 10:46–52 tells of this blind beggar who properly identifies Jesus as the “Son of David” (cf. Matt. 20:29–34; Luke 18:35–43). Because blindness can be a symbol of unbelief (Isa. 43:8), restoring sight was a sign of the coming Messiah (Isa. 29:18; Matt. 11:2–6). The Bartimaeus story is part of a larger unit (Mark 8:22–10:52), framed by Jesus’ healing of another blind person (8:22–26). Seeing and believing, Bartimaeus is cast as an ideal disciple, “following” Jesus (10:52). Mark’s use of the name implies a well-known disciple (cf. Jairus in 5:22).

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.

Gospel of Mark

Mark’s Gospel is a fast-paced, action-packed narrative that portrays Jesus as the mighty Messiah and Son of God, who suffers and dies as the servant of the Lord—a ransom price for sins. Mark’s purpose is to provide an authoritative account of the “good news” about Jesus Christ and to encourage believers to follow Jesus’ example by remaining faithful to their calling through persecution and even martyrdom. A theme verse is Mark 10:45: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Narrative Structure (Plot) and Main Themes

Mark’s narrative may be divided into two main parts. The first half of the story demonstrates that Jesus is the mighty Messiah and Son of God (1:1–8:26); the second half reveals that the Messiah’s role is to suffer and die as a sacrifice for sins (8:27–16:8).

Messiah and Son of God. Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark does not begin with stories of Jesus’ birth but instead moves directly to his public ministry. As in the other Gospels, John the Baptist is the “messenger” who prepares the way for the Messiah (cf. Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1). John preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins and announces the “more powerful” one, the Messiah, who will come after him (1:7). When Jesus is baptized by John, the Spirit descends on him, empowering him for ministry. After his temptation (or testing) by Satan in the desert, Jesus returns to Galilee and launches his ministry, proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) that “the time has come. . . . The kingdom of God has come near” (1:15).

During his Galilean ministry, Jesus demonstrates extraordinary authority in teaching, healing, and exorcism. He calls fishermen from their occupation, and they drop everything and follow him (1:16–20). He claims authority to forgive sins (2:10) and authority over the Sabbath command (2:28). He reveals power over natural forces, calming the sea (4:35–41), walking on water (6:45–52), and feeding huge crowds with a few loaves and fishes (6:30–44; 8:1–13). The people stand “amazed” and “astonished” (a major theme in Mark) at Jesus’ teaching and miracles, and his popularity soars.

Jesus’ authority and acclaim provoke opposition from the religious leaders of Israel, who are jealous of his influence. The scribes and Pharisees accuse him of claiming the prerogative of God (2:7), associating with undesirable sinners (2:16), breaking the Sabbath (2:24), and casting out demons by Satan’s powers (3:22). They conspire to kill him (3:6).

A sense of mystery and awe surrounds Jesus’ identity. When he calms the sea, the disciples wonder, “Who is this?” (4:41), and King Herod wonders if this might be John the Baptist risen from the dead (6:16). Adding to this sense of mystery is what has come to be called the “messianic secret.” Jesus silences demons who identify him as the Messiah and orders those he heals not to tell anyone what has happened. This secrecy is not, as some have claimed, a literary device invented by Mark to explain Jesus’ unmessianic life; rather, it is Jesus’ attempt to calm inappropriate messianic expectations and to define his messianic mission on his own terms.

Messiah’s role to suffer and die. The critical turning point in the narrative comes in 8:27–33, when Peter, as representative of the disciples, declares that Jesus is the Messiah. The authority that Jesus has demonstrated up to this point confirms that he is God’s agent of salvation. Yet Jesus startles the disciples by announcing that his messianic task is to go to Jerusalem to suffer and die. Peter rebukes him, but Jesus responds, “Get behind me, Satan! . . . You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns” (8:33). Jesus will accomplish salvation not by crushing the Roman occupiers, but by offering his life as a sacrifice for sins.

In the second half of the Gospel, Jesus journeys to Jerusalem, three times predicting that he will be arrested and killed (8:31–32; 9:31; 10:33–34). The disciples repeatedly demonstrate pride, ignorance, and spiritual dullness (8:33; 9:32–34; 10:35–41), and Jesus teaches them that whoever wants to be first must become last (9:35); that to lead, one must serve (10:45); and that to be Jesus’ disciple requires taking up one’s cross and following him (8:34).

When he comes to Jerusalem, Jesus symbolically judges the nation by clearing the temple of merchants (11:15–17) and by cursing a fig tree (representing Israel), which subsequently withers (11:12–14, 20–21). He engages in controversies with the religious leaders (chaps. 11–12) and teaches the disciples that Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed (chap. 13). Judas Iscariot, one of Jesus’ own disciples, betrays him. Jesus is arrested and brought to trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin, which finds him guilty of blasphemy. That council turns Jesus over to the Roman governor Pilate, who accedes to his crucifixion (chaps. 14–15).

The crucifixion scene in Mark is a dark and lonely one. Jesus is deserted by his followers, unjustly condemned, beaten by the soldiers, and mocked by all. Apparently deserted even by God, Jesus cries out from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (15:34). Yet the reader knows by this point in the story that Jesus’ death is not the tragedy that it seems. This is God’s means of accomplishing salvation. Upon Jesus’ death, the curtain of the temple is torn, opening a new way into God’s presence. The Roman centurion at the cross cries out, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (15:39). The death of the Messiah is not a defeat; it is an atoning sacrifice for sins. Three days later Jesus rises from the dead, just as he has predicted. When Jesus’ women followers come to the tomb, the angel announces, “He has risen! He is not here” (16:6). Jesus the Messiah has turned tragedy into victory and has defeated sin, Satan, and death.

Literary Features

Mark writes with a rough Semitic style characterized by colorful detail and dramatic effect. He emphasizes Jesus’ actions rather than extended teaching. For its length, Mark’s Gospel records more miracles and less teaching than the other Gospels. The author’s fondness for the term “immediately” (euthys) and use of the Greek historical present tense give the narrative a fast-paced, vivid, and realistic style.

One of Mark’s favorite literary techniques is intercalation, a sandwiching method whereby one episode is interrupted by another, with the two mutually interpreting each other. One example of this is the clearing of the temple, which is sandwiched between the cursing and withering of the fig tree (11:12–25). Both episodes symbolically represent Israel’s spiritual failure and coming judgment. Other intercalations appear in 3:20–35; 5:21–43; 6:7–30; 14:53–72.

Mark is also fond of groups of three, or triads. Three boat scenes illustrate the disciples’ lack of faith and comprehension (4:35–41; 6:45–52; 8:14–21). In three cycles of events, Jesus predicts his death and then teaches his disciples about servant leadership (8:31–38; 9:31–37; 10:32–45). In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus three times tells his disciples to be alert (13:33, 35, 37), and then three times he finds them sleeping in Gethsemane (14:37, 40, 41). Peter denies Jesus three times (14:68, 70, 71), and three three-hour intervals are mentioned during the crucifixion (15:25, 33, 34). These and other literary devices provide color to Mark’s narrative and carry the story forward.

Authorship

Early church tradition identifies the author of this Gospel as John Mark, son of Mary (Acts 12:12), cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10), missionary companion of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:5), and later companion of Peter (1 Pet. 5:13). Church tradition claims that Mark became Peter’s interpreter while working with him in Rome and put into writing Peter’s version of the Gospel.

Most scholars consider Mark to have been the first Gospel written and think that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as one of their sources.

Audience, Life Setting, and Date

The specific audience of Mark’s Gospel is uncertain, although the author’s tendency to explain Jewish customs and terms suggests a primarily non-Jewish (Gentile) readership. Mark also sometimes provides Latin equivalents for Greek terms. This would agree with the church tradition that the Gospel was composed by John Mark in Rome and was intended for the Roman church.

A Roman setting and destination also fit well with the theme of faithfulness through suffering that runs through Mark’s story. Many scholars place the origin of Mark’s Gospel in Rome in the mid-60s AD, in the context of the emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians. Mark writes to encourage his readers to endure suffering for the gospel, to take up their crosses and follow Jesus, for “even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45).

Outline

I. The Preparation of the Son of God (1:1–13)

II. The Authoritative Ministry of the Son of God in and around Galilee (1:14–8:26)

A. The kingdom authority of the Son of God (1:14–3:12)

B. The disciple family of the Son of God and those outside (3:13–6:6)

C. The mission of the Son of God (6:7–8:26)

III. The Suffering of the Son of God as Servant of the Lord (8:27–16:8)

A. The confession of Peter and the servant Messiah (8:27–10:52)

B. The Son of God confronts Jerusalem (11:1–13:37)

C. Climax: The death of the Son of God (14:1–15:47)

D. Resolution: The resurrection of the Son of God (16:1–8)

E. Appendix (16:9–20)

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.

Iniquity

There are few subjects more prominent in the Bible than sin; hardly a page can be found where sin is not mentioned, described, or portrayed. As the survey that follows demonstrates, sin is one of the driving forces of the entire Bible.

Sin in the Bible

Old Testament. Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:16–17), Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joined Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion was complete. They attempted to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves were inadequate. God confronted them and was unimpressed with their attempts to shift the blame. Judgment fell heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself was affected (3:17–18).

In the midst of judgment, God made it clear in two specific ways that sin did not have the last word. First, God cryptically promised to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Although the serpent would inflict a severe blow upon the offspring of the woman, the offspring of the woman would defeat the serpent. Second, God replaced the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functioned as a substitute for Adam and Eve, covering their sin.

In Gen. 4–11 the disastrous effects of sin and death are on full display. Not even the cataclysmic judgment of the flood was able to eradicate the wickedness of the human heart (6:5; 8:21). Humans gathered in rebellion at the tower of Babel in an effort to make a name for themselves and thwart God’s intention for them to scatter across the earth (11:1–9).

In one sense, the rest of the OT hangs on this question: How will a holy God satisfy his wrath against human sin and restore his relationship with human beings without compromising his justice? The short answer is: through Abraham and his offspring (Gen. 12:1–3), who eventually multiplied into the nation of Israel. After God redeemed them from their slavery in Egypt (Exod. 1–15), he brought them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that was predicated on obedience (19:5–6). A central component of this covenant was the sacrificial system (e.g., Lev. 1–7), which God provided as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God set apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins (Lev. 16). On this Day of Atonement the high priest took the blood of a goat into the holy of holies and sprinkled it on the mercy seat as a sin offering. Afterward he took a second goat and confessed “all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness. . . . The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21–22 NRSV). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions had to be made to enable fellowship.

Despite these provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently broke its covenant with God. Even at the highest points of prosperity under the reign of David and his son Solomon, sin plagued God’s people, including the kings themselves. David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11:1–27). Solomon had hundreds of foreign wives and concubines, who turned his heart away from Yahweh to other gods (1 Kings 11:1–8). Once the nation split into two (Israel and Judah), sin and its consequences accelerated. Idolatry became rampant. The result was exile from the land (Israel in 722 BC, Judah in 586 BC). But God refused to give up on his people. He promised to raise up a servant who would suffer for the sins of his people as a guilt offering (Isa. 52:13–53:12).

After God’s people returned from exile, hopes remained high that the great prophetic promises, including the final remission of sins, were at hand. But disillusionment quickly set in as the returnees remained under foreign oppression, the rebuilt temple was but a shell of Solomon’s, and a Davidic king was nowhere to be found. Before long, God’s people were back to their old ways, turning away from him. Even the priests, who were charged with the administration of the sacrificial system dealing with the sin of the people, failed to properly carry out their duties (Mal. 1:6–2:9).

New Testament. During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grew. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus were announced, it was revealed that he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the days before the public ministry of Jesus, John the Baptist prepared the way for him by “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proved to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God in the face of temptation (Matt. 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Luke 3:23–4:13; Rom. 5:12–21; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8–10). He was also the Suffering Servant who gave his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45; cf. Isa. 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experienced the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserved for their sin. With his justice fully satisfied, God was free to forgive and justify all who are identified with Christ by faith (Rom. 3:21–26). What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus Christ did with his own blood (Rom. 8:3–4; Heb. 9:1–10:18).

After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’ followers began proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). As people began to experience God’s forgiveness, they were so transformed that they forgave those who sinned against them (Matt. 6:12; 18:15–20; Col. 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rom. 8:12–13; Gal. 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rom. 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rom. 8:12–30; Rev. 21–22).

As even this very brief survey of the biblical story line from Genesis to Revelation shows, sin is a fundamental aspect of the Bible’s plot. Sin generates the conflict that drives the biblical narrative; it is the fundamental “problem” that must be solved in order for God’s purposes in creation to be completed.

Definition and Terminology

Definition of sin. Although no definition can capture completely the breadth and depth of the concept of sin, it seems best to regard sin as a failure to conform to God’s law in thought, feeling, attitude, word, action, orientation, or nature. In this definition it must be remembered that God’s law is an expression of his perfect and holy character, so sin is not merely the violation of an impersonal law but rather is a personal offense against the Creator. Sin cannot be limited to actions. Desires (Exod. 20:17; Matt. 5:27–30), emotions (Gen. 4:6–7; Matt. 5:21–26), and even our fallen nature as human beings (Ps. 51:5; Eph. 2:1–3) can be sinful as well.

Terminology. The Bible uses dozens of terms to speak of sin. Neatly classifying them is not easy, as there is significant overlap in the meaning and use of the various terms. Nonetheless, many of the terms fit in one of the following four categories.

1. Personal. Sin is an act of rebellion against God as the creator and ruler of the universe. Rather than recognizing God’s self-revelation in nature and expressing gratitude, humankind foolishly worships the creation rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:19–23). The abundant love, grace, and mercy that God shows to humans make their rebellion all the more stunning (Isa. 1:2–31). Another way of expressing the personal nature of sin is ungodliness or impiety, which refers to lack of devotion to God (Ps. 35:16; Isa. 9:17; 1 Pet. 4:18).

2. Legal. A variety of words portray sin in terms drawn from the lawcourts. Words such as “transgression” and “trespass” picture sin as the violation of a specific command of God or the crossing of a boundary that God has established (Num. 14:41–42; Rom. 4:7, 15). When individuals do things that are contrary to God’s law, they are deemed unrighteous or unjust (Isa. 10:1; Matt. 5:45; Rom. 3:5). Breaking the covenant with God is described as violating his statutes and disobeying his laws (Isa. 24:5). The result is guilt, an objective legal status that is present whenever God’s law is violated regardless of whether the individual subjectively feels guilt.

3. Moral. In the most basic sense, sin is evil, the opposite of what is good. Therefore, God’s people are to hate evil and love what is good (Amos 5:14–15; Rom. 12:9). Similarly, Scripture contrasts the upright and the wicked (Prov. 11:11; 12:6; 14:11). One could also include here the term “iniquity,” which is used to speak of perversity or crookedness (Pss. 51:2; 78:38; Isa. 59:2). Frequent mention is also made of sexual immorality as an especially grievous departure from God’s ways (Num. 25:1; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 5:1–11).

4. Cultic. In order for a person to approach a holy God, that individual had to be in a state of purity before him. While a person could become impure without necessarily sinning (e.g., a menstruating woman was impure but not sinful), in some cases the term “impurity” clearly refers to a sinful state (Lev. 20:21; Isa. 1:25; Ezek. 24:13). The same is true of the term “unclean.” Although it is frequently used in Leviticus to speak of ritual purity, in other places it clearly refers to sinful actions or states (Ps. 51:7; Prov. 20:9; Isa. 6:5; 64:6).

Metaphors

In addition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible uses several metaphors or images to describe it. The following four are among the more prominent.

Missing the mark. In both Hebrew and Greek, two of the most common words for “sin” have the sense of missing the mark. But this does not mean that sin is reduced to a mistake or an oversight. The point is not that a person simply misses the mark of what God requires; instead, it is that he or she is aiming for the wrong target altogether (Exod. 34:9; Deut. 9:18). Regardless of whether missing the mark is intentional or not, the individual is still responsible (Lev. 4:2–31; Num. 15:30).

Departing from the way. Sin as departing from God’s way is especially prominent in the wisdom literature. Contrasts are drawn between the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 6; Prov. 4:11–19). Wisdom is pictured as a woman who summons people to walk in her ways, but fools ignore her and depart from her ways (Prov. 9:1–18). Those who do not walk in God’s ways are eventually destroyed by their own wickedness (Prov. 11:5; 12:26; 13:15).

Adultery. Since God’s relationship with his people is described as a marriage (Isa. 62:4–5; Ezek. 16:8–14; Eph. 5:25–32), it is not surprising that the Bible describes their unfaithfulness as adultery. The prophet Hosea’s marriage to an adulterous woman vividly portrays Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh (Hos. 1–3). When the Israelites chase after other gods, Yahweh accuses them of spiritual adultery in extremely graphic terms (Ezek. 16:15–52). When Christians join themselves to a prostitute or participate in idolatry, they too are engaged in spiritual adultery (1 Cor. 6:12–20; 10:1–22).

Slavery. Sin is portrayed as a power that enslaves. The prophets make it clear that Israel’s bondage to foreign powers is in fact a picture of its far greater enslavement to sin (Isa. 42:8; 43:4–7; 49:1–12). Paul makes a similar point when he refers to those who do not know Christ as slaves to sin, unable to do anything that pleases God (Rom. 6:1–23; 8:5–8). Sin is a cosmic power that is capable of using even the law to entrap people in its snare (Rom. 7:7–25).

Scope and Consequences

Sin does not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage along with it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Scope. The stain of sin extends to every part of the created order. As a result of Adam’s sin, the ground was cursed to resist human efforts to cultivate it, producing thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17–18). The promised land is described as groaning under the weight of Israel’s sin and in need of Sabbath rest (2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 12:4); Paul applies the same language to all creation as well (Rom. 8:19–22).

Sin affects every aspect of the individual: mind, heart, will, emotions, motives, actions, and nature (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9–18). Sometimes this reality is referred to as “total depravity.” This phrase means not that people are as sinful as they could be but rather that every aspect of their lives is tainted by sin. As a descendant of Adam, every person enters the world as a sinner who then sins (Rom. 5:12–21). Sin also pollutes societal structures, corrupting culture, governments, nations, and economic markets, to name but a few.

Consequences. Since the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34–40), it makes sense that sin has consequences on both the vertical and the horizontal level. Vertically, sin results in both physical and spiritual death (Gen. 2:16–17; Rom. 5:12–14). It renders humanity guilty in God’s court of law, turns us into God’s enemies, and subjects us to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 1:18; 3:19–20; 5:6–11). On the horizontal level, sin causes conflict between individuals and harms relationships of every kind. It breeds mistrust, jealousy, and selfishness that infect even the closest relationships.

Conclusion

No subject is more unpleasant than sin. But a proper understanding of sin is essential for understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ. As the Puritan Thomas Watson put it, “Until sin be bitter, Christ will not be sweet.”

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.

Kingdom of God

The kingdom of God is a major theme in the Bible. While the theme is most fully developed in the NT, its origin is the OT, where the emphasis falls on God’s king-ship. God is king of Israel (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5; Isa. 43:15) and of all the earth (2 Kings 19:15; Pss. 29:10; 99:1–4; Isa. 6:5; Jer. 46:18). Juxtaposed to the concept of God’s present reign as king are references to a day when God will become king over his people (Isa. 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:9). This emphasis on God’s kingship continues throughout Judaism and takes on special significance in Jewish apocalypticism and its anticipation of the kingdom of God in the age to come, which abandoned any hope for present history. Only at the end of the age will the kingdom of God come. This idea of God’s kingdom is further developed throughout the NT.

The Synoptic Gospels

In the Synoptic Gospels the phrase “the kingdom of God” occurs over one hundred times in Mark, Luke, and Matthew (where “kingdom of heaven” is a synonym for “kingdom of God”). Three views have been defended regarding whether and to what extent the kingdom of God was present in Jesus’ ministry. In other words, how are we to interpret the phrase “kingdom of God” in the Synoptics? The three views are consistent eschatology, realized eschatology, and inaugurated eschatology.

Consistent eschatology. Albert Schweitzer, a biblical scholar from the late nineteenth century, first popularized consistent eschatology. Here, “consistent” means consistent with the apocalyptic Judaism of Jesus’ day, which interpreted the kingdom of God as something coming in the future. Judaism at the time of Christ divided history into two periods: this age of sin, when sin rules, and the age to come, when the Messiah is expected to bring the kingdom of God to earth. Schweitzer concluded that an apocalyptic understanding of the kingdom was foundational not only for Christ’s teaching, but also to understanding his life. Thus, Schweitzer maintained that Jesus believed that it was his vocation to become the coming Son of Man. Initially, Jesus revealed this messianic secret only to Peter, James, and John. Later, Peter told it to the rest of the Twelve. Judas told the secret to the high priest, who used it as the grounds for Jesus’ execution (Mark 14:61–64; cf. Dan. 7:13).

According to Schweitzer, when Jesus sent out the Twelve on a mission to proclaim the coming kingdom of God, he did not expect them to return. The Twelve were the “men of violence” (cf. Matt. 11:12) who would provoke the messianic tribulation that would herald the kingdom. Whereas some earlier scholars believed that one could only wait passively for the kingdom, Schweitzer believed that the mission of Jesus was designed to provoke its coming. When this did not happen, Jesus determined to give his own life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45) and so cause the kingdom to come.

According to Schweitzer, Jesus took matters into his own hands by precipitating his death, hoping that this would be the catalyst for God to make the wheel of history turn to its climax—the arrival of the kingdom of God. But, said Schweitzer, Jesus was wrong again, and he died in despair. So for Schweitzer, Jesus never witnessed the dawning of the age to come; it lay in the distant future, separated from this present age.

On the positive side, Schweitzer called attention to the fact that the message of Jesus is rooted in first-century apocalyptic Judaism and its concept of the kingdom of God. This connection is still foundational to a proper understanding of biblical prophecy and the Gospels today. On the negative side, Schweitzer’s selective use of evidence and rejection of the historicity of much of the Gospel tradition resulted in a skewed perspective on the present dimensions of Jesus’ eschatology.

Realized eschatology. In contrast to futurist eschatology, where the kingdom of God awaits a final consummation at the end of history, realized eschatology views the kingdom of God as already realized in the person and mission of Jesus. The futurist aspects of Jesus’ teaching are reduced to a minimum, and his apocalyptic language is viewed as symbolic of theological truths.

The person most responsible for advocating this position is British scholar C. H. Dodd. In his 1935 book Parables of the Kingdom, he focused on Jesus’ teachings that announced the arrival of the kingdom with his coming. For instance, in Luke 11:20 Jesus says, “But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (cf. Luke 17:21; Matt. 13). Eschatology becomes a matter of the present experience rather than any kind of future event. The kingdom has fully come in the messianic ministry of Jesus.

Most interpreters have criticized Dodd’s realized eschatology for ignoring Jesus’ teachings that point to a future consummation of the kingdom (e.g., Matt. 24–25; Mark 13). When all of Jesus’ teachings are considered, futurist eschatology balances realized eschatology. To be sure, the kingdom arrived with Jesus, but Jesus himself taught that history still awaits a final completion. The kingdom of God is both “already” and “not yet,” which leads us to the third view of the relationship of the kingdom of God to the ministry of Jesus Christ.

Inaugurated eschatology. The third view, inaugurated eschatology, is commonly connected with the twentieth-century Swiss theologian Oscar Cullmann. Like others before him, Cullmann understood that the Jewish notion of the two ages formed an important background for understanding the message of Jesus. According to Judaism, history is divided into two periods: this age of sin and the age to come (i.e., the kingdom of God). For Jews the advent of the Messiah would effect the shift from the former to the latter. In other words, Judaism viewed the two ages as consecutive. According to Cullmann, Jesus Christ announced that the end of time, the kingdom of God, had arrived within history (see Mark 1:15 pars.; esp. Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62; 10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17, 24–25, 29; Acts 28:31). Yet other passages suggest that although the age to come had already dawned, it was not yet complete. It awaited the second coming for its full realization (Luke 13:28–29; 14:15; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51; Acts 1:6). Hence the adjective “inaugurated” characterizes this eschatology. Such a view is pervasive in the NT (see, e.g., Acts 2:17–21; 3:18, 24; 1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 1 John 2:18). So for inaugurated eschatology, the two ages are simultaneous: the age to come exists in the midst of this present age. Christians therefore live in between the two ages until the parousia (second coming of Christ).

We may break down the data in the Synoptic Gospels regarding the “already/not yet” aspects concerning the kingdom of God in this manner: Mark, probably the first Gospel written, records Jesus’ programmatic statement in 1:15: “The time has come. . . . The kingdom of God has come near.” Mark, along with Luke and Matthew, then goes on to demonstrate that Jesus’ miracles, teachings, death, and resurrection inaugurated the kingdom of God. Yet it is also clear from Matthew, Mark, and Luke that the final manifestation of the kingdom has not yet happened. We may draw on Luke as representative of all three Synoptics. Luke’s Gospel indicates that the kingdom was present for Jesus (Luke 7:28; 8:10; 10:9–11; 11:20; 16:16; 17:20–21), but it also awaited the second coming for its completion (6:20–26; 11:2; 12:49–50, 51–53; 13:24–30; 21:25–29; 22:15–18, 30). The same dual aspect of the kingdom pertains to Luke’s second volume, Acts. The kingdom was present in Jesus’ ministry and now through his disciples (Acts 1:3; 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23–31), but it will not be completed until Christ comes again (1:6; 14:22).

The Gospel of John

John’s Gospel has only three references to the kingdom of God. Nicodemus was told by Jesus that he needed to be born again to enter the kingdom of God (3:3–5). Yet Jesus’ kingdom is not worldly in nature, but spiritual (18:36). Although the Gospel of John contains both the present (“already”) aspect and the future (“not yet”) aspect, the focus is clearly on the present. This is why many scholars label the Fourth Gospel the “Gospel of Realized Eschatology.” This emphasis on the “already” can be seen in John in the following ways: (1) Eternal life, or entrance into the kingdom of God, can be a present possession (3:5–6, 36; 6:47, 51, 58; 8:51; 10:28; 11:24–26). (2) The eschatological promise of sonship is granted to the believer in Jesus now (1:12–13; 3:3–8; 4:14). (3) The general resurrection has already begun (5:25). (4) The Spirit, the gift of the end time, currently indwells believers (7:37–39; 14:15–31; 15:26–27; 16:5–16; 20:22–23). (5) Final judgment is determined by one’s present response to Jesus (3:19; 5:22–24, 27, 30–38; 9:38; 12:31–33). (6) The spirit of antichrist has already entered the world scene to oppose Christ (6:70; 13:2, 27). (7) Jesus’ death on the cross seems to absorb some elements of the messianic woes or aspects of tribulation. In other words, Jesus’ passion was where the end-time holy war was waged, and his death and resurrection began the end of the forces of evil (15:18–16:11).

On the other hand, the Gospel of John also includes some typical future (“not yet”) aspects of eschatology. For example, the future resurrection is still expected (5:26–30). Likewise, the future second coming of Christ is alluded to (14:1–4; 21:22). Admittedly, however, the “already” aspect of the kingdom of God seems to overshadow the “not yet” perspective in the Fourth Gospel.

Pauline Literature

The phrase “kingdom of God” and/or “kingdom of Christ” occurs twelve times in Paul’s writings.

Rom. 14:17 – kingdom of God (present tense)

1 Cor. 4:20 – kingdom of God (present tense)

1 Cor. 6:9-10 – kingdom of God (2x) (future tense)

1 Cor. 15:24 – kingdom of Christ/God (present/future tense)

1 Cor. 15:50 – kingdom of God (future tense)

Gal. 5:21 – kingdom of God (future tense)

Eph. 5:5 – kingdom of Christ/God (future tense)

Col. 1:13 – kingdom of the Son (present tense)

Col. 4:11 – kingdom of God (present tense)

1 Thess. 2:12 – his [God’s] kingdom (future tense)

2 Thess. 1:5 – kingdom of God (future tense)

Three observations emerge from the chart: (1) The kingdom of Christ/God is both present and future, already here and not yet complete. This is consistent with the Gospels and Acts. (2) Christ and God are, in at least two instances, interchanged, suggesting equality of status between them (cf. Eph. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; 12:10). (3) In 1 Cor. 15:24 we find the most precise description of the exact relationship between the kingdoms of Christ and God: the interim messianic kingdom begun at the resurrection of Christ will one day give way to the eternal kingdom of God. Such a temporary kingdom is attested to in apocalyptic Judaism and may underlie Rev. 20:1–6.

Christians therefore live in between the two ages, in the messianic kingdom.

Hebrews and the General Epistles

Hebrews and the General Epistles continue the theme of the “already/not yet” aspects of the kingdom.

Hebrews. The following ideas associated in Second Temple Judaism with the arrival of God’s kingdom are seen by the author of Hebrews to have been fulfilled at the first coming of Christ: (1) the appearance of the Messiah of the last days indicates the dawning of the kingdom of God (1:2; 9:9–10); (2) the great tribulation/messianic woes that were expected to occur in connection with the advent of the Messiah are now here (2:5–18; cf. 5:8–9; 7:27–28; 10:12; 12:2); (3) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit has happened (6:4–5); (4) the manifestation of the eschatological high priest at the end of history has taken place in Jesus (7:26–28), who has also established the new covenant of the last days (8:6–13). Compare the preceding statements in Hebrews with that author’s explicit mention of the presence of the kingdom of God in 12:18–28. And yet the kingdom of God is not yet fully here. The church continues to suffer the messianic woes, as is evidenced in the intermingling of Jesus’ suffering of the great tribulation with the present afflictions of the Christian (2:5–18; 3:7–4:6; 5:7–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:1–2; 13:11–16). Furthermore, the exhortations to persevere in the faith that punctuate the book of Hebrews (2:1–4; 3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:14–29) are a familiar theme in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature.

The General Epistles. The main message of James is that the last days are here (1:2; 5:3) and with it the messianic woes (1:2–12; 5:1–12). Therefore, believers will need to faithfully endure the great tribulation until the second coming of Christ. But there are two indications that James also teaches that the kingdom of God has dawned in the midst of the great tribulation. First, Christians experience even now the eschatological quality of joy (James 1:2–3; cf. Joel 2:21–27). Second, Christians also share in the end-time gift of wisdom (James 1:5–8).

First Peter is similar to James with regard to its inaugurated eschatology. Thus, the church suffers the messianic woes/great tribulation (1 Pet. 1:6, 11; 3:13–17; 4:12–19; 5:1–9). Nevertheless, the age to come/kingdom of God has broken into the midst of this age, as evidenced by the eschatological joy and God’s protective power that it brings (1:5–6).

Second Peter does seem to stress the “not yet” aspect of the kingdom of God. Thus, the kingdom of God still waits to be entered (1:11), is hindered by end-time apostasy (2 Pet. 2), and has been postponed (3:1–10). Yet the “already” aspect of the kingdom is not entirely absent. This is evidenced by the fact that the transfiguration of Christ on the mountain was a display of the coming power and glory of the age to come, a glory revealed to the disciples on the mountain and now communicated to all believers (1:16–19).

Jude is devoted to alerting Christians to the reality that they are in the midst of the end-time holy war (vv. 3, 20–23), as can be seen by their struggle with the false teaching of end-time apostasy (vv. 5–19). Nevertheless, because believers possess the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit, they will prevail to fully enter the kingdom of God (v. 20).

The Letters of John attest to the overlapping of the two ages—that is, inaugurated eschatology. Thus, on the one hand, the spirit of antichrist is here (1 John 2:18; 2 John 7), along with the false teaching that it breeds (1 John 2:20–29; cf. 2–3 John); but on the other hand, the Johannine community has the end-time anointing of the Holy Spirit, which preserves believers from evil and deception (1 John 2:20–21; 3:1–10). Moreover, Christians presently have eternal life through Christ, one of the blessings of the kingdom of God (1 John 5:11–13).

Revelation

The “already/not yet” aspects of the kingdom of God are manifested in Revelation in the following way: the kingdom of God has already dawned in heaven, but it has not yet appeared on earth. Regarding the former, it is clear from 1:9; 5:1–14; 12:1–6 that Jesus’ death and resurrection inaugurated the advent of the kingdom of God in heaven. Thus, Jesus obediently underwent the messianic woes on the cross and was then raised to heavenly glory, triumphant over the great tribulation. There in heaven, Christ reigns as the invisible Lord over all (including Caesar). But that the kingdom of God has not yet descended to earth is clear in Revelation from two present realities. First, even though Jesus has endured the great tribulation/messianic woes, his followers continue to face many trials (chaps. 6–18). There is no deliverance for them from such affliction until the return of Christ in glory (chap. 19). The only possible exception to this is the divine protection of the 144,000 (chaps. 7; 14). Second, the kingdom of God has not appeared on earth; that event awaits the parousia (chap. 20 [assuming that the premillennial interpretation of that chapter is the most viable reading]). In all of this, it seems that the messianic woes/great tribulation are the divine means for purging the earth in preparation for the future arrival of the temporal, messianic kingdom (chap. 20). After Christ’s one-thousand-year reign on earth, this temporal messianic kingdom will give way to the eternal kingdom of God and its new earth and new heaven (chaps. 21–22). It must be acknowledged, however, that interpretations of chapters 20–22 greatly vary, depending on whether one takes a premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial perspective.

Conclusion

The preceding data thus seem to confirm that the most apt description of the relationship between the two ages and the kingdom of God that informs the NT is inaugurated eschatology: with the first coming of Christ, the kingdom of God/the age to come dawned, but it will not be until the second coming of Christ that the age to come/kingdom of God will be complete. The church therefore lives in between the times. That is to say, the age to come has broken into this present age, and it is only through the eye of faith that one can now perceive the presence of the kingdom of God.

Love

Old Testament

Preconditions to love. According to the OT, three preconditions must exist for us to know what it means to love.

First, we have the capacity for relationships because we are made in the likeness of a personal God. God created us to reciprocate love back to him, in a relationship of mutual love.

New Testament

Ministry

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

Ownership

Both Testaments proclaim, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (Ps. 24:1; 1 Cor. 10:26). Only the Lord and Creator of the universe can rightfully claim ownership over anything, be it physical, spiritual, or moral (Job 41:11). Thus, “every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights” (James 1:17). He even owns human beings themselves. In a biblical worldview, God alone exercises ownership. People, however, exercise stewardship over what he has given.

Scripture guides and regulates human relationships with respect to owning property. While people are ultimately only stewards, they must never wrongly take or desire what God has entrusted to others. Therefore God commands, “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:15) and “You shall not covet” (20:17). The book of Proverbs explains how to wisely dispose of one’s goods (Prov. 3:9, 10; 11:25; 22:9), as does Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14–30). Numerous passages teach that human “ownership” should be earned through work, if possible (Jer. 29:5–7; 2 Thess. 3:10). People should acknowledge their possessions as gifts from God by giving to the poor (Eph. 4:28) and to God’s appointed leaders, both secular and Christian: “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17 [cf. Rom. 13:6; 1 Tim. 5:18]).

In fact, the whole Bible can be read as the drama of the divine owner relating to his human stewards. At creation, God charges Adam and Eve “to work . . . and take care of” the garden (Gen. 2:15), thereby entrusting all creation to human care. In disobedience they abuse their stewardship, as will their offspring. In the fall, humankind forfeits God’s benefits in paradise (Gen. 3); he disowns his unfaithful stewards. The rest of Scripture relates how God redeems a people for himself, adopting the disinherited back into his household. He begins by promising Abraham that his offspring, Israel, will possess a land, Canaan (Gen. 17:8), which will be a kind of new paradise (Exod. 3:8). The Israelites conquer the territory, but over time they prove to be unfaithful stewards. After breaking God’s covenant, they lose the land in exile.

Jesus’ parable of the landowner in Matt. 21:33–44 is basically a capsule version of this grand biblical story. Both come to a climax when God sends his Son, Jesus Christ. He comes to “buy back” his people from their sins as the one faithful servant (Mark 10:45), even unto death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). Jesus pays for his elect’s adoption with his blood, so now believers partake in God’s ownership over all things. “All things are yours, whether . . . the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God” (1 Cor. 3:21–23).

Redeem

The idea of redemption was well known in antiquity. More than a simple notion of deliverance, redemption spoke as much of the grace of the redeemer as of the deliverance of the redeemed. Classical texts use the Greek word apolytrōsis (“redemption”) to articulate the ransom payment given to release a slave, a captive of war, or someone sentenced to death. The group of words based on the Greek term lytron (“ransom”) conveys the idea of payment for release. The corresponding Hebrew word padah is a commercial term rooted in the idea of the transfer of ownership.

Old Testament

The experience of the exodus gave the idea of redemption religious significance. The commemoration of this redemptive event included the dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 13:12–13). Moreover, Israel itself, God’s own firstborn (Exod. 4:22), was redeemed by Yahweh—language that Isaiah later picked up to describe Abraham (Isa. 29:22). As the theme of redemption continued to broaden, God’s redemption came to include deliverance from all Israel’s troubles (Ps. 25:22). Redemption included the whole of the human situation, not just the eternal destiny (or the new age to come).

Another Hebrew term, ga’al, generally relates to the kinsman-redeemer. In the case of a person who had sold property due to poverty or even gone into slavery to pay a debt, a kinsman could become a redeemer by buying back the property (Lev. 25:25–28) and/or purchasing freedom from slavery (25:47–49). The book of Ruth describes this, detailing the relationship between the impoverished Ruth and Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer. The prophets and the psalms apply this understanding to how God redeems Israel (Isa. 43:1–3; Ps. 19:14; cf. Job 19:25). God, however, does not pay ransom to anyone (Isa. 52:3–4); rather, he causes redemption by his power (45:13).

The awaited Messiah, promised through the prophets, would become God’s ultimate expression of his redemptive love. When the people’s continued rebellion against God finally broke the Mosaic covenant, God’s judgment sent them into captivity and exile in Babylon. Now, without place and identity, their only hope for a future was if God would ransom his people and restore his covenant with them. This longing for God’s redemption grew during the exile. As the persecutions increased further during the so-called intertestamental period (an approximately four-hundred-year period between the OT and the NT), the earlier prophetic promises became a full-blown messianic hope. God will send the Messiah as redeemer to ransom his people from Greek and Roman oppression.

New Testament

The NT champions the theme of redemption (see Luke 4:18–19). When Jesus came, teaching that he would redeem his people from the slavery of sin (John 8:34–36), he spoke of himself as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28 // Mark 10:45). Paul’s theology of the cross accentuated the same connection between sin, slavery, and Jesus’ ransom. He saw people as sold into slavery under sin (Rom. 6:17; 7:14) and redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice (3:24). The Christian idea of ransom followed the accepted contemporary idea that people who are sentenced to death (Rom. 6:23) can gain their life back if a redeemer buys it with a ransom (Col. 1:13–14). The predominance of apolytrōsis in the NT, compared to common Greek literature of that period, underscores its significance for early Christian conceptualization.

Without reflecting on to whom the ransom should be paid, which was made an issue by later theologians and philosophers, the NT authors highlight Jesus’ blood as the ransom payment (e.g., Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12; cf. Rev. 5:9). The emphases of the NT remain on the need of the redeemed, the grace of the redeemer, and the effects of the redemption. Christ’s ransom transfers the redeemed from one sphere of influence to another, or rather, from one owner to another. Incomparable to commonly known worldly ransoms, which consisted of monetary means and remained external to the redeemer himself (1 Pet. 3:18–19), Jesus substituted his own life for the life of those he redeemed (antilytron hyper [1 Tim. 2:6]). God still did not pay ransom to anyone, but rather caused it by his own power.

The OT notion that redemption points to God’s involvement in the present, allowing for a historical experience of salvation, fills the NT conception as well. This is seen most clearly in Paul’s theological ethics. The new ownership accomplished by Jesus’ redemption enables a new kind of life to be lived in freedom from the slavery of sin (1 Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). More than just a matter of ethics, it follows Jesus’ emphasis of an “already but not yet” experience of God’s presence. Redemption is evidenced by the Spirit’s presence (Rom. 8:1–17).

Although redemption is present, the fullness of it still awaits the future (Rom. 8:18–23), when the redeemer will fill all in all (1 Cor. 15:28; Col. 1:19–20). Contrary to Hellenistic conceptions of redemption, which expect redemption from the body, Paul expects redemption of the body. God’s eschatological redemption is universal; it restores the relationship between creation and the Creator (Col. 1:21–23; Eph. 1:7–10).

Redeemed

Old Testament

New Testament

Redeemer

Old Testament

New Testament

Redemption

Old Testament

New Testament

Sin

Sin in the Bible

Definition and Terminology

Metaphors

In addition to specific terms used for “sin,” the Bible uses several metaphors or images to describe it. The following four are among the more prominent.

Scope and Consequences

Sin does not travel alone; it brings a large collection of baggage along with it. Here we briefly examine its scope and consequences.

Conclusion

Volunteers

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

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

Showing 1 to 50 of169 results

1. Parable of the Two Ships

Illustration

Unknown

The first ship was a mighty man of war carrying its cargo of manpower and ammunition. It was a thrilling sight to see and a devastating power. On occasion the ship moved with mighty purpose and more often flexed its guns in peacetime pageantry. The second ship was a fishing boat manned by a few hands and eternally engaged in the procuring of food for hungry men.

"Wouldn't you like to be a great battleship," spoke the trawling boat to its mother fishing craft. "Then all the other boats would make way for your coming."

"No," said the fishing craft. "The battleship depends more on me than I depend on it. That great ship is especially powerful in protecting life or destroying it in time of war and it depends on which side you are on as to how you value its activity. On the other hand my work is to feed life and make happy all whom I serve every day. My work is always valuable and always good. Importance in life depends on your standard of values."

Mankind may find true happiness in the humblest tasks when the proper set of Christian values is used. We all need to be important and are important in the sight of God. Each one should be bringing happiness to others and finding joy within through the outreach of helpfulness. Service is its own declaration of faith in man and in God.

2. Sturdy Dreamers

Illustration

Larry Powell

Foe three weeks the minister announced in the church newsletter that a called meeting of the Administrative Board would be held to consider enlarging the church kitchen. For three weeks, the same announcement appeared in the Sunday worship bulletin and was repeated verbally from the pulpit. On the appointed date, the board met, deliberated the details, and voted to move ahead with the kitchen project. Construction was soon under way. One morning, a member of the board happened by the church and was curious to know what all the commotion was about in the kitchen. It was explained that the kitchen was being enlarged. The board member was irate. "Who authorized that?" he demanded. He was informed that the Adminsitrative Board had met and unanimously approved the project. "Why didn’t I know anything about the meeting?" he snapped hatefully. That was a good question, considering he had been in church each Sunday the announcement was made and the newsletter had carried the same information into his home for three successive weeks. Why do people not pay attention? Are they (we) preoccupied, disinterested, along for a free ride, or just simply contrary? For whatever reason, it is both disconcerting and annoying to be ignored repeatedly.

Jesus and his disciples were on their way to Jerusalem and, in what was actually his third announcement of his approaching death, Jesus said: "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise" (10:33-34). James and John, the sons of Zebedee, had not heard a word of it! Immediately, their ambitions, which doubtless they had been stroking while Jesus had been speaking, came to the front. En route to a human sacrifice, they dared to ask for places of honor in the kingdom (10:37). They were indeed, as the writer of the hymn, "Are Ye Able?" describes them - sturdy dreamers.

Jesus taught that to seek places of honor is to be off on the wrong trail; service is the objective. "The Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45)..

3. Ego

Illustration

G. Curtis Jones

George Bernard Shaw was once asked in what generation he would have preferred to live. The witty Irishman replied: "The age of Napoleon, because then there was only one man who thought he was Napoleon."

4. Worship Services that Seek to Accommodate Rather than Dictate

Illustration

Timothy Wright

Timothy Wright, who is associate pastor at the Community Church of Joy (Lutheran) in Phoenix, Arizona, tells of "standing in the back of our sanctuary when a tall, lanky young man approached me. He was visibly shaking and appeared troubled. I anticipated an emergency counseling situation. Instead, he inquired about weddings. He asked if he could be married in our church, even though he was not a member. We talked details for a few moments, and then he said, 'Please forgive my shaking. I've never been in a church before, and I'm a little nervous.'"

Wright goes on to say: "Seekers often enter our churches feeling the same way. They do not know what to expect. They are apprehensive, if not actually frightened. I am unsure what they think will happen to them, but whatever it is, they think it could be awful. Visitor-oriented congregations take those feelings seriously and design services that put guests at ease. An informal setting encourages visitors to settle in and relax. An upbeat, celebratory climate, friendly people and enthusiastic music help guests forget their fears."

5. Having a Life Purpose

Illustration

In his book, "Man's Search for Meaning," Austrian psychiatrist Dr. Viktor Frankl documents the profound power that a life purpose exerts over an individual under even the worst of circumstances. Frankl, who survived the Nazi concentration camps, described how prisoners who felt they had nothing to live for succumbed, while those who perceived themselves as having a mission to complete, struggled to survive. Deprived of all external supports that might give life meaning, these survivors came to realize that, in Frankl's words, "It did not really matter what we expected of life, but rather what life expected from us." Their sense of an inner purpose pulled them through the most horrible physical and emotional experiences so that they might make their unique contribution to the world.

Everyone has a purpose in life beyond one's immediate interests and gratifications, though that purpose frequently goes undiscovered. Many people devote their entire lives to the pursuit of greater ease and pleasure. Those who had not found the "why" that gives meaning to existence may achieve material success, yet the real goodness of life will elude them. The true meaning of life lies in sharing our particular qualities of greatness with others.

6. Decaffeinated Christianity

Illustration

Bill Bouknight

Most Christians prefer what Bishop Michael Marshall has called "decaffeinated Christianity," the kind of religion that won't keep you awake a night. This kind of religion costs little, won't require you to get involved in controversy or other people's troubles, and will surround you with comfort. But by the way, this kind of religion is counterfeit.

7. The Weight of the Cross

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

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

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

And neither can we.

8. The Drum Major Instinct

Illustration

Dr. Martin Luther King

The following words were part of a sermon given by Dr. King at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, on February 4, 1968.

I know a man—and I just want to talk about him a minute, and maybe you will discover who I'm talking about as I go down the way (Yeah) because he was a great one. And he just went about serving. He was born in an obscure village, (Yes, sir) the child of a poor peasant woman. And then he grew up in still another obscure village, where he worked as a carpenter until he was thirty years old. (Amen) Then for three years, he just got on his feet, and he was an itinerant preacher. And he went about doing some things. He didn't have much. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. (Yes) He never owned a house. He never went to college. He never visited a big city. He never went two hundred miles from where he was born. He did none of the usual things that the world would associate with greatness. He had no credentials but himself.

He was only thirty-three when the tide of public opinion turned against him. They called him a rabble-rouser. They called him a troublemaker. They said he was an agitator. (Glory to God) He practiced civil disobedience; he broke injunctions. And so he was turned over to his enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. And the irony of it all is that his friends turned him over to them. (Amen) One of his closest friends denied him. Another of his friends turned him over to his enemies. And while he was dying, the people who killed him gambled for his clothing, the only possession that he had in the world. (Lord help him) When he was dead he was buried in a borrowed tomb, through the pity of a friend.

Nineteen centuries have come and gone and today he stands as the most influential figure that ever entered human history. All of the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned put together (Yes) have not affected the life of man on this earth (Amen) as much as that one solitary life. His name may be a familiar one. (Jesus) But today I can hear them talking about him. Every now and then somebody says, "He's King of Kings." (Yes) And again I can hear somebody saying, "He's Lord of Lords." Somewhere else I can hear somebody saying, "In Christ there is no East nor West." (Yes) And then they go on and talk about, "In Him there's no North and South, but one great Fellowship of Love throughout the whole wide world." He didn't have anything. (Amen) He just went around serving and doing good.

This morning, you can be on his right hand and his left hand if you serve. (Amen) It's the only way in.

9. Looking for an EZ Pass

Illustration

David Beckett

On many of our nation's toll roads, rather than stopping at a toll-booth to toss some change in a hopper, you can now purchase a transponder, sometimes called an EZ-Pass, and zip through in the left lanes without even slowing down to the acceptable speed limit. Instead of cash, tickets and paper receipts, it's a microchip tag placed on your windshield containing pertinent data which eases your way. Your data is quickly read by a tollbooth electronic antenna as your car zooms on through. It automatically deducts your appropriate toll tax. This computerized collection system then sends a monthly statement to your home with tallies of times and places for your records. EZ-Pass is like a debit card for your car, only quicker. No more stopping at the tollgate, the narrow gate.

Jesus says, I am the narrow gate. There's no quick way in. There's no shortcut. If he wasn't the Christ himself already, he'd be the perfect patron saint of tollgates.

Sometimes it seems that everybody wants the easy way to the front of the line, a quick way to glory and fast track to success. Including James and John, the brothers Zebedee, who want front-row seats numbering two and three. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and see if you can identify with their self-centeredness. These guys gave up everything to follow Jesus. They followed Jesus when nobody knew him. They followed Jesus before his miracles. Now that he was popular, James and John were feeling the swell of fame. After all, they were Jesus' best friends, his disciples! So we can understand why two of them came to Jesus with their request.

10. I Hate To Leave This Church

Illustration

William G. Carter

A Methodist pastor once wrote about power and politics in his denomination. Methodist preachers, he notes, are under the care of a bishop. Bishops, in turn, are Methodist preachers who are elected by fellow Methodist preachers after an extensive campaign for the office in which the candidate tries not to be caught campaigning. As he observes, It is a long-standing Methodist tradition that bishops must not appear to have sought their office and, once elected, the new bishop must make a public declaration that "I didn't seek this office and I didn't want it but, once the Lord calls" ... Methodist preachers take all of this with a grain of salt, the same way Baptist congregations have learned to be somewhat skeptical when one of their preachers moves on to a better church claiming, "I hate to leave this church and I would rather stay here, but the Lord calls." Baptists note that the Lord rarely calls someone out of one church into another church unless that church has a higher salary. Methodists have likewise noted that there have been few preachers who, once they are elected bishop, turn the job down.

"Teacher, we want you to put us on your right and on your left. But keep it quiet. Don't make it too obvious. Others may become offended that we asked first." By telling us this story, Mark knows what you and I know: we are prone to the same desire for privilege and protected status. We want a Jesus who will give us what we want, a Lord who can shower a little power on us, a Savior who can make us better than we are.

11. What's in It for Me?

Illustration

William G. Carter

A number of years ago, a small book appeared for ministers. Titled The Penguin Principles, it attempted to help naive clergy get a handle on the people of their congregations. Most of the material in the book was written with tongue in cheek, so it has some truth in it. According to the book, the first principle of church life goes like this: "Despite the pious things we say, at any given time, less than five percent of any group in the church is operating with purely Christian motivation. The other 95 percent is asking, 'What's in it for me?'"

12. No Box Seats in the Kingdom

Illustration

William G. Carter

Joel Gregory became the pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, an impressive congregation with almost thirty thousand members. It was the crowning achievement of a preacher career. First Baptist Church occupies five city blocks in downtown Dallas. It houses two schools, a college, and a radio station. The church gave him a nice home, memberships in exclusive country clubs, and luxury box seats for Dallas Cowboys football games. They weren't box seats for the kingdom, but in Dallas a box seat for one is as good as a box seat for another.

But something went wrong in Gregory's pastorate. Church leaders wanted more members; thirty thousand weren't enough. People wanted the physical plant to grow; five city blocks wasn't big enough. Most of all, everyone expected Gregory to tag along behind his predecessor, W. A. Criswell, who had served that congregation for 46 years and who, despite his announcements to the contrary, showed no signs of retiring. "There wasn't room for both of us," Joel Gregory said. "The whole zoo of human ambition and power and ego is the fabric of some superchurches." A power struggle began, dividing the church into opposing sides. One day in September 1992, Gregory stunned many Southern Baptists by resigning from that prominent pulpit. There was also a divorce to throw into the mix.

To support himself he traveled through Fort Worth neighborhoods as a door-to-door salesman selling funeral plans. A lot of people said he's a failure. Joel Gregory said otherwise. "For the first time in my life, at 46, I was learning what it means to be a servant," he says. "It gave me a different view of Christ, and a different view of the real needs of human beings."

A friend of his didn't give up on his calling. He set up Joel to preach at some black congregations. For some reason his preaching caught fire within African-American churches. Then he was back and professor of preaching at Baylor. It was a riches-to rags-to riches story, and all quite humbling.

Jesus said, "Are you able to drink my cup? Are you able to share my baptism? Are you able to walk with me, giving yourself to others in a life of service?" If we dare say yes, we must remember the road of discipleship is uphill all the way, and it leads to the foot of the cross. Whoever would follow Jesus must follow him there. He never promised anything else.

A Baptist news site summarizes his story this way:

A life in three acts:

Act 1 — Normalcy. The pace zips. The protagonist, a boy of modest means, grows up in Fort Worth, Texas. Like millions of Baptist children coming of age in the mid-20th century, his life perches upon three sturdy pillars — home, school and a full-service neighborhood church. Despite the lure of academia, church trumps school, and the boy sets out to become a preacher. He trains at the world’s largest Baptist institutions, studying at Baylor University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Baylor again. Along the way, he learns the ministerial ropes in small churches.

Act 2 — Glory and Cataclysm. Gregory accepts the pastorate of the “seminary church” in Fort Worth. Promoted by the school’s connected-and-charismatic president, millions discover The Voice, an inimitably grand oratorical presence. The still-young pastor preaches in magnificent venues. In just 13 years, he assumes Baptistdom’s most prominent pulpit. Only two years later, he resigns abruptly, later endures divorce and supports himself selling “pre-need funeral plans” door-to-door.

Act 3 — Redemption. Of all the saints in all creation, a prominent African-American pastor becomes Gregory’s best friend. He keeps insisting that Gregory can’t quit. He places Gregory in front of 900 black Baptist pastors. Before you can say, “Resurrection,” Gregory ascends pulpit after pulpit. He’s the most popular white preacher in African-American congregations nationwide. Other Baptists eventually catch the spirit, and by the end of the movie, Gregory returns to Baylor. Oxymoronically, the last great exemplar of 19th-century pulpit oratory invests his final years teaching 21st-century ministers to preach

See: https://baptistnews.com/article/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-again-of-joel-gregory/#.X0SIa-hKguU

See: https://www.baylor.edu/truett/index.php?id=927921

13. Life Together

Illustration

William G. Carter

Richard Foster, who wrote the famous book Celebration of Disciple, tells about receiving a phone call from a friend. The friend's wife had taken the car, and he wanted to know if Richard could take him on a number of errands. Richard was preparing to teach a college class, but since the man was his friend he reluctantly agreed. As he ran out the door, car keys in hand, he grabbed a book to read along the way. It was a book by Dietrich Bonhoeffer called Life Together.

Foster picked up his friend, and the errands did not go well. There were plenty of stops and starts, traffic was bad, and precious time kept ticking away. Finally they pulled into a parking lot, the friend got out, and Richard stayed behind with his book. He opened it to the bookmark, and read these words: "The second service that one should perform for another in a Christian community is that of active helpfulness. This means, initially, simple assistance in trifling, external matters. There is a multitude of these things wherever people live together. Nobody is too good for the meanest service. One who worries about the loss of time that such petty, outward acts of helpfulness entail is usually taking the importance of his own career too solemnly."

14. Jimmy Carter's Effectiveness

Illustration

Katherine Fagerburg

Talk show host John Calloway interviewed the editor of The Christian Century. Calloway asked James Wall, "What do you think made Jimmy Carter so effective as an international negotiator?" Wall replied, "Carter has the prestige and experience of the presidency without the political baggage. Furthermore, he is able to draw on his personal, deeply held religious belief that in talking with another person, one must be sensitive to the other's perspective."

Calloway responded, "You are really saying that it is the one without power who really has power."

That is closer to what Christ taught, that power is sometimes manifested in weakness, in giving oneself to others. Authentic greatness is redefined to mean serving instead of being served, using the power of love rather than seeking power and control. In the kingdom of God, we do not attain prominence by getting our bids in first, or by elbowing our way to the front. Prominence comes as we serve others with humility.

15. Service Keeps Us Alive

Illustration

Unamuno, the Spanish philosopher, tells about the Roman aqueduct at Segovia, in his native Spain. It was built in 109 A.D. For eighteen hundred years, it carried cool water from the mountains to the hot and thirsty city. Nearly sixty generations of men drank from its flow. Then came another generation, a recent one, who said, "This aqueduct is so great a marvel that it ought to be preserved for our children, as a museum piece. We shall relieve it of its centuries-long labor."

They did; they laid modern iron pipes. They gave the ancient bricks and mortar a reverent rest. And what happened to the aqueduct? It began to fall apart. The sun beating on the dry mortar caused it to crumble. The bricks and stone sagged and threatened to fall. What ages of service could not destroy idleness quickly threatened disintegrated. A campaign was started and it was saved.

Our lives are not fruitful without service to one another. I think James and John knew better than to ask Jesus for military and leadership positions within his coming political kingdom but they couldn't help themselves. If they fully understood the kind of Kingdom Jesus was suggesting they never would have made that request. We have the advantage of hindsight, learning from their lessons. Aqueducts crumble when put out of service. Christians too.

16. Service

Illustration

James W. Moore

Have you heard the beautiful children's story about the three trees? The trees were talking in the forest one day about their dreams for the future. The first tree said it would like to be made into a cradle, so that it might go on living as a support for the fragile life of a tiny new baby. The second tree wanted to be made into a big ship, so that it might go on living, carrying important cargo and influential people to exotic new lands. The third tree longed to stay right where it was, existing only as a tree, but growing ever taller, and pointing ever higher, to remind everyone that there is a God in heaven who loves them. Those were their dreams: One wanted to be a cradle, one wanted to be a mighty ship, and one wanted to be a tall tree, pointing people toward God.

But then one day the woodcutters came and chopped down the three trees...and destroyed their dreams. The first tree was not made into a cradle, but into a simple feeding trough, a manger for animals. But the manger was sold to a family in Bethlehem, and on the night Jesus was born, that simple feed box became the cradle for the Christ Child.

The second tree was built into a boat, but not the kind it had dreamed of--not a mighty ocean-going vessel--but a tiny inexpensive fishing boat. A man named Simon Peter bought the boat, and on one warm afternoon when the crowds pressed in, Jesus himself climbed aboard that small fishing boats that he might preach good news to the multitudes.

The third tree also was deprived of its dream. It wanted to remain standing tall and pointing toward God. Instead, it was cut down and shaped into a horrible instrument of torture, a cross. But it was on that very cross that Jesus was crucified, transforming a symbol of cruelty into a powerful reminder of God's eternal love for all the people.

The three trees were humbled, but in the plan of God, they were exalted.

That's the way it works: When we, in humility, give ourselves to God, our Lord can do great things through us and for us greater than we can ever imagine.

17. Everybody Wants to Be Somebody

Illustration

Kenneth L. Carder

Everybody wants to be somebody. Since the dawn of history, human beings have been trying to move up the scale of importance. The clincher used by the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve was "when you eat of [the tree of good and evil], your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5). Theologian Henri Nouwen says that ever since then, we have been tempted to replace love with power. "The long painful history of the church is the history of people ever and again tempted to choose power over love, control over the cross, being a leader over being led." This is a theme running through the Bible, through human history and through our own psyche.

18. One Positive Thing

Illustration

William Barclay

"There are many negative things that can be said about James and John," writes William Barclay. "They were nakedly ambitious and proud: they wanted, and believed they deserved, places of honor in Jesus' kingdom. They were ignorant and insensitive: their request for places of honor came right after Jesus had told of His coming suffering and death. But there's one positive thing you can say about James and John: they believed in Jesus. Here was a poor, homeless, persecuted carpenter and yet James and John believed Jesus was a king. They believed that He would conquer the power structure of Rome." Even their crude ambition reflected their faith in Christ.

19. Competitive Kids

Illustration

Erskine White

Do we learn from children how not to be so competitive - how to be happy with our own gifts and achievements and not to be so obsessed with what the next person has? Well, consider the plight of poor Charlie Brown (in Peanuts), who is walking with his friends on the way to school one morning. It is "show and tell day," and Lucy is asking Linus if he remembered to bring anything for the class to see.

"Yes, I did," says Linus, as he unfolds some papers. "These are copies I drew of the Dead Sea Scrolls," holding them up for the others to see. "This is a copy of the scroll of Isaiah, chapters 38-40. It was made from 17 pieces of sheepskin and was found in a cave by a Bedouin shepherd boy."

Pulling out another piece of paper, Linus says, "Here I've made a copy of the earliest known fragment ever found. It is a portion of 1 Samuel 23:9-16. I'll try to explain to the class how these manuscripts have influenced modern Biblical scholarship."

Lucy responds, "Very interesting, Linus." Then she turns and says, "Are you bringing something for show and tell, Charlie Brown?" "Well," says a crestfallen Charlie Brown, "I had a little red fire engine here, but I think I'll just forget it."

Don't kid yourself. Even in kindergarten, the kids compete and they feel badly when they don't measure up.

20. Caring Service and Its Impact

Illustration

Roger Dow

A room-service waiter at a Marriott hotel learned that the sister of a guest had just died. The waiter, named Charles, bought a sympathy card, had hotel staff members sign it, and gave it to the distraught guest with a piece of hot apple pie. That guest later wrote to the president of Marriott Hotels, "Mr. Marriott," the letter said, "I'll never meet you. And I don't need to meet you. Because I met Charles. I know what you stand for. ... I want to assure you that as long as I live, I will stay at your hotels. And I will tell my friends to stay at your hotels."

21. Maintenance or Mission

Illustration

Brian Stoffregen

Churches need to be mission oriented but often fall into maintenance behavior and many times they don't know they've slipped from mission into maintenance. Let's look at the following to gauge how much mission vs. maintenance exist in our congregation:

1. In measuring the effectiveness, the maintenance congregation asks, "How many pastoral visits are being made? The mission congregation asks, "How many disciples are being made?"

2. When contemplating some form of change, the maintenance congregation says, "If this proves upsetting to any of our members, we won't do it." The mission congregation says, "If this will help us reach someone on the outside, we will take the risk and do it."

3. When thinking about change, the majority of members in a maintenance congregation ask, "How will this affect me?" The majority of members in the mission congregation ask, "Will this increase our ability to reach those outside?"

4. When thinking of its vision for ministry, the maintenance congregation says, "We have to be faithful to our past." The mission congregation says, "We have to be faithful to our future."

5. The pastor in the maintenance congregation says to the newcomer, "I'd like to introduce you to some of our members." In the mission congregation the members say, "We'd like to introduce you to our pastor."

6. When confronted with a legitimate pastoral concern, the pastor in the maintenance congregation asks, "How can I meet this need?" The pastor in the mission congregation asks, "How can this need be met?"

7. The maintenance congregation seeks to avoid conflict at any cost (but rarely succeeds). The mission congregation understands that conflict is the price of progress, and is willing to pay the price. It understands that it cannot take everyone with it. This causes some grief, but it does not keep it from doing what needs to be done.

8. The leadership style in the maintenance congregation is primarily managerial, where leaders try to keep everything in order and running smoothly. The leadership style in a mission congregation is primarily transformational, casting a vision of what can be, and marching off the map in order to bring the vision into reality.

9. The maintenance congregation is concerned with their congregation, its organizations and structure, its constitutions and committees. The mission congregation is concerned with the culture, with understanding how secular people think and what makes them tick. It tries to determine their needs and their points of accessibility to the Gospel.

10. When thinking about growth, the maintenance congregations asks, "How many Lutherans live within a twenty-minute drive of this church?" The mission congregation asks, "How many unchurched people live within a twenty-minute drive of this church?"

11. The maintenance congregation looks at the community and asks, "How can we get these people to support our congregation?" The mission congregation asks, "How can the Church support these people?"

12. The maintenance congregation thinks about how to save their congregation. The mission congregation thinks about how to reach the world.

22. The Three Poison Pills of Position, Prestige, and Power - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

During the American Revolution a man in civilian clothes rode past a group of soldiers repairing a small defensive barrier. Their leader was shouting instructions, but making no attempt to help them. Asked why by the rider, he retorted with great dignity, "Sir, I am a corporal!" The stranger apologized, dismounted, and proceeded to help the exhausted soldiers. The job done, he turned to the corporal and said, "Corporal, next time you have a job like this and not enough men to do it, go to your commander-in-chief, and I will come and help you again." With that George Washington got back on horse and rode off.

Where did Washington learn such leadership skills? I have no doubt he learned them here. In these words of Jesus: Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant. The young corporal had these words modeled to him from the man at the top. The disciples, likewise, receive from their leader a picture of servant hood.

And it is high time they start imitating their leader. It is now five days before Jesus' crucifixion. Four days before his betrayal and trial. One day before the clearing of the temple. A few hours before the Triumphal Entry. If the Disciples are going to start appropriating Jesus' teachings in their life it ought to be now. But it doesn't happen. Moments before the most crucial events in their life they are a bickering, petty, bad-tempered quarrelsome lot. We need to learn from this not-so-flattering moment in the life of the disciples.

How is it that critical moments can be so close at hand and we are off wondering what's in it for me? It has to do with the three poison pills of:

1. Position
2. Prestige
3. And Power

23. "Others"

Illustration

King Duncan

Every holiday season we begin to see people in uniforms in shopping malls ringing bells collecting donations for the poor. They are doing the work of the Salvation Army.

In 1878, when the Salvation Army was really beginning to make its mark, men and women from all over the world began to enlist. A man who had once dreamed of becoming a bishop in another denomination crossed the Atlantic from America to England to enlist in the Salvation Army instead. His name was Samuel Brengle. Brengle left a fine pastorate to join William Booth's Army. At first General Booth accepted his services reluctantly and grudgingly. Booth said to Brengle, "You've been your own boss too long." So in order to instill humility in Brengle, he made him work by cleaning the boots of other trainees.

Discouraged, Brengle said to himself, "Have I followed my own fancy across the Atlantic in order to black boots?" Then, as in a vision, he saw Jesus bending over the feet of rough, uneducated fishermen. "Lord," he whispered, "you washed their feet; I will black their shoes."

Samuel Brengle went on to establish the Salvation Army in America. At the time of his death, the Salvation Army was thriving in both the United States and in Canada. Just before his death Brengle sent out a short memo to all of his top leaders. This memo had one single word written on it: "Others."

24. Pursuing Dreams

Illustration

King Duncan

There is a wonderful story about the King and Queen of Sweden who were attending the 1980 Olympic Winter Games in Lake Placid, New York. Trying to get into an ice hockey game featuring the Swedish team, they were stopped by the ticket taker because their tickets were for another game on another day. The King said that the correct tickets were in his car and he asked that they be allowed in without the correct tickets: “Could you make an exception for us, please?” he said. “You see, I’m the King of Sweden.”

The ticket taker responded, “Sure you are, and I suppose this is the Queen.”

The King and Queen of Sweden went back to their car to get the correct tickets . . . only to see it being towed away.

I guess it is a little different being the King and Queen of Sweden and being, say, the Queen of England. The job obviously comes with fewer perks.

How about your job? Are you at the place you had hoped to be at this stage of your life? We spend our whole lives pursuing dreams and goals. The aim is to go higher, to become greater. To have more perks, as it were. That is the mark of success. It even affects our families. We want our children to become doctors and lawyers and engineers. Nobody tries to persuade their children to become servants. What?! A servant? But sometimes God’s way confuses man’s wisdom.

25. A Lifetime to Prepare

Illustration

King Duncan

There is an old legend about a man who had a rather stupid servant. The master often got exasperated with his servant. One day in a fit of frustration he said to the servant, "You've got to be the stupidest man I've ever met. Look, I want you to take this staff and carry it with you. And if you ever meet a man stupider than you are, give him the staff." So the servant carried the staff. Often out in the marketplace he'd meet some pretty stupid people. But he was never sure they were worse off than he. Years passed with the servant carrying his staff. Then one day, he came back to the castle and was ushered into the bedroom of his master. His master was quite sick.

In the course of their conversation, the master said, "I'm going on a long journey." The servant said, "When do you plan to be back?" The master said, "This is a journey from which I'll not return." The servant said, "Sir, have you made all the necessary preparations?" The master said, "No, I have not." The servant said, "Could you have made preparations?" The master said, "Yes, I guess I've had my life to make them, but I've been busy about other things." The servant said "Master, you're going on a journey from which you'll never return, you could've prepared for it, and you just didn't?" The master said, "Yes, I guess that's right." The servant took the staff he'd carried so long and said, "Master take this with you. At last I've met a man more stupid than myself."

Could that be us? Could we be that foolish? I hope not. I surely hope not. Victory belongs to those who are prepared. Preparation is an essential characteristic of character. The most important preparation we can make is for eternity.

26. SERVANT, SERVITOR

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Exodus 12:45 - "No sojourner or hired servant may eat of it."

2 Kings 4:43 - "But his servant said, ‘How am I to set this before a hundred men?’ ..."

A servant is a person of either sex who is in the service of another person, and the term does not necessarily mean that this servant is a domestic, in the sense that we use it today. In our usage, a servant is one who works for pay and in so doing attends to the physical needs, in one way or another, of the person who has employed him.

But this was not necessarily the designation in the ancient world. Rather, that concept would be more akin to "slave," which implies a forced labor, but is more in keeping with the type of work done by today’s servants. Rather, the ancient servant means merely someone who was in service to another, and this type of service was often of a high order. In that sense, then, any person under the king was a servant. For example, we have Eliezer, whose position in the household of Abraham compared with that of the prime niinister, hardly a menial position!

However, the servant had certain obligations, whatever his status or rank - he was under obligation to obey and to work for the benefit of his master, which is still not too far away from the idea of the hired workman of today. In return for his obedience and care, he received protection and reciprocal care.

The servitor, on the other hand, may correspond more to our modern concept of servant, since he was the one who served, or ministered to, another. However, again, we must not necessarily equate this with a menial position, although, of course, it could well have been one, and often was. But the point is that it did not have to be so. It may merely mean "one in waiting," or the person who is available to serve in whatever capacity is required. And that, too, is still true today.

27. Jesus the Sin Stealer

Illustration

Michael L. Cobbler

The primary emphasis of John's declaration is to say who Jesus is (the Lamb of God) and also to say what Jesus does (takes away the sin of the world). This is all well and good, but the old Adam in me gets nervous when I have an encounter with a "sin stealer." I want to be as graphic and as plain as I can be about this Jesus is the ultimate sin stealer, and that troubles me. You can certainly use language that describes this reality in different terms, like "Jesus removes our sins," or "Jesus washed my sins away," but Jesus "rips us off" as far as our corporate and personal sins are concerned. I am a witness to this, because I was reared by a sin stealer, my mother. Now Daddy was a "sin reactor and responder," and I was the not always grateful recipient of his reactions and responses, but Mama was the sin stealer, the one who had the spiritual discernment and psychology to see that I would live in the benefits of John's declaration and Jesus' action.

This sin stealing was shown most clearly on an early spring day long ago, when my mother had made my favorite lunch for school. It was a small container of chocolate milk, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies. I went off to Public School 129, but a block and a half away, eager for the morning to pass so I could sink my teeth into one of those delicious cookies, but as I turned from Stuyvesant Ave on to Quincy Street I was face to face with Junebug, the bully of the block.

"Gimmie that lunch, punk!" he said.

"But, Junebug, that's my lunch."

"You better gimmie that lunch!"

"But it's mine. My Mom made it for me, and she made me my favorite ."

Junebug's right uppercut sent me and the lunch to the ground. He picked up the lunch and said, "That's what you get for not listening to me!" and went off to school. I also went off to school with no lunch and lots of anger.

At home that late afternoon I was very silent. Mama, knowing something was up, said, "What happened at school today?"

"I'm gonna kill him!"

"What?"

"I'm gonna kill him!"

"And who do you plan to kill?"

"Junebug. He beat me up, he stole my lunch, and I'm gonna kill him!"

Mama thought for awhile and then said, "Here, have some food. Don't start your homework right away there is something we need to do together, but you must do it as I say."

The next morning I saw Junebug in front of the school. He pointed to me and said, "Here is that punk who I stole cookies from yesterday!"

I walked up to him, handed him a bag and said, "Junebug, here are some cookies. They're for you. I and my mother made them."

"Whatta you mean, punk? Giving me cookies? I can take them from you anytime I want!"

"But we made them for you take them."

"Are they poison?"

"No, they're okay take them."

He took the bag from me and handed it to one of his buddies. "Hey, Bootsie, you try them."

"But they just may be poison," said Bootsie.

"Try them anyway, already! They just may be good!"

After one bite, and Bootsie still standing, Junebug passed out the cookies to his buddies, saying, "The punk has brought me, Junebug, some cookies! Isn't that great!"

The next day, I saw Junebug during recess. I walked up to him, gave him a bag and said, "Junebug, here are some more cookies. Take them, they're free."

"Are you messing with me, man? Are you messing with me? These are the ones that are poison! Yesterday was just to set me up!"

"Don't worry, Junebug. They're just fine." He took the bag and backed away from me with a terrified look on his face.

The following day, I saw Junebug in the cafeteria. I said, "Junebug, here are some more cookies. Enjoy them!"

"How can I enjoy cookies if you keep on giving them to me! Now cut it out, man! I didn't even finish yesterday's cookies! No more cookies! (He took the bag anyway.)

On the next day, I saw Junebug at the end of school. I walked up to him and said, "Junebug, here are...." He took one look at that bag of cookies and turned running and screaming all the way down Quincy Street. I haven't even had the notion of taking someone's life ever since. Because Jesus is a sin stealer, My mom stole my intention to sin.

28. Historic: The Declaration of Independence

Illustration

Staff

The unanimous Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies in Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Background

On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall), approved the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to set forth the principles upon which the Congress had acted two days earlier when it voted in favor of Richard Henry Lee's motion to declare the freedom and independence of the 13 American colonies from England. The Declaration was designed to influence public opinion and gain support both among the new states and abroad especially in France, from which the new "United States" sought military assistance.

Although Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman and Robert R. Livingston comprised the committee charged with drafting the Declaration, the task fell to Jefferson, regarded as the strongest and most eloquent writer. The document is mainly his work, although the committee and Congress as a whole made a total of 86 changes to Jefferson's draft.

As a scholar well-versed in the ideas and ideals of the French and English Enlightenments, Jefferson found his greatest inspiration in the language and arguments of English philosopher John Locke, who had justified England's "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 on the basis of man's "natural rights." Locke's theory held that government was a contract between the governed and those governing, who derived their power solely from the consent of the governed and whose purpose it was to protect every man's inherent right to property, life and liberty. Jefferson's theory of "natural law" differed in that it substituted the inalienable right of "the pursuit of happiness" for "property," emphasizing that happiness is the product of civic virtue and public duty. The concept of the "pursuit of happiness" originated in the Common Sense School of Scottish philosophy, of which Lord Kames was the best-known proponent.

Jefferson emphasized the contractual justification for independence, arguing that when the tyrannical government of King George III of England repeatedly violated "natural law, " the colonists had not only the right but the duty to revolt.

The assembled Continental Congress deleted a few passages of the draft, and amended others, but outright rejected only two sections: 1) a derogatory reference to the English people; 2) a passionate denunciation of the slave trade. The latter section was left out, as Jefferson reported, to accede to the wishes of South Carolina and Georgia, who wanted to continue the importation of slaves. The rest of the draft was accepted on July 4, and 56 members of Congress began their formal signing of the document on August 2, 1776.

29. I Didn't Know How to Teach Until I Met You

Illustration

Keith Wagner

There is a story many years ago of an elementary teacher. Her name was Mrs. Thompson. And as she stood in front of her fifth grade class on the very first day of school, she told the children a lie. Like most teachers, she looked at her students and said that she loved them all the same. But that was impossible, because there in the front row, slumped in his seat, was a little boy named Teddy Stoddard.

Mrs. Thompson had watched Teddy the year before and noticed that he didn't play well with the other children, that his clothes were messy and he constantly needed a bath. And Teddy could be unpleasant. It got to the point where Mrs. Thompson would actually take delight in marking his papers with a broad red pen, making bold X's and then putting a big "F" at the top of his papers.

At the school where Mrs. Thompson taught, she was required to review each child's past records and she put Teddy's off until last. However, when she reviewed his file, she was in for a surprise. Teddy's first grade teacher wrote, "Teddy is a bright child with a ready laugh. He does his work neatly and has good manners...he is a joy to be around." His second grade teacher wrote, "Teddy is an excellent student, well liked by his classmates, but he is troubled because his mother has a terminal illness and life at home must be a struggle." His third grade teacher wrote, "His mother's death has been hard on him. He tries to do his best but his father doesn't show much interest and his home life will soon affect him if some steps aren't taken." Teddy's fourth grade teacher wrote, "Teddy is withdrawn and doesn't show much interest in school. He doesn't have many friends and sometimes sleeps in class."

By now, Mrs. Thompson realized the problem and was ashamed of herself. She felt even worse when her students brought her Christmas presents, wrapped in beautiful ribbons and bright paper, except for Teddy's. His present was clumsily wrapped in the heavy, brown paper that he got from a grocery bag. Mrs. Thompson took pains to open it in the middle of the other presents. Some of the children started to laugh when she found a rhinestone bracelet with some of the stones missing and a bottle that was one quarter full of perfume. But she stifled the children's laughter when she exclaimed, how pretty the bracelet was. She put it on and dabbed some of the perfume on her wrist.

Teddy Stoddard stayed after school that day just long enough to say, "Mrs. Thompson, today you smelled just like my mom used to." After the children left she cried for at least an hour. On that very day, she quit teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. Instead, she began to teach children.

Mrs. Thompson paid particular attention to Teddy. As she worked with him, his mind seemed to come alive. The more she encouraged him, the faster he responded. By the end of the year, Teddy had become one of the smartest children in the class and, despite her lie that she would love all the children the same, Teddy became one of her pets. A year later, she found a note under her door, from Teddy, telling her that she was still the best teacher he ever had in his whole life.

Six years went by before she got another note from Teddy. He then wrote that he had finished high school, third in his class, and she was still the best teacher he ever had in his whole life. Four years after that, she got another letter, saying that while things had been tough at times, he stayed in school, had stuck with it, and would soon graduate from college with the highest of honors. He assured Mrs. Thompson that she was still the best and favorite teacher he ever had in his whole life. Then four more years passed and yet another letter came. This time he explained that after he got his bachelor's degree, he decided to go a little further. The letter explained that she was still the best and favorite teacher he ever had. But now his name was a little longer. The letter was signed, Theodore F. Stoddard, MD.

The story doesn't end there. You see, there was yet another letter that spring. Teddy said he'd met a girl and was going to be married. He explained that his father had died a couple of years ago and he was wondering if Mrs. Thompson might agree to sit in the place at the wedding that was usually reserved for the mother of the groom.

Of course, Mrs. Thompson did. And guess what? She wore that bracelet, the one with several rhinestones missing. And she made sure she was wearing the perfume that Teddy remembered his mother wearing on their last Christmas together. They hugged each other, and Dr. Stoddard whispered in Mrs. Thompson's ear, "Thank you, Mrs. Thompson, for believing in me. Thank you so much for making me feel important and showing me that I could make a difference." Mrs. Thompson, with tears in her eyes, whispered back. She said, "Teddy, you have it all wrong. You were the one who taught me that I could make a difference. I didn't know how to teach until I met you."

30. Unwise and Wise Living

Illustration

William R. Baker

Jewish rabbis tell a poignant story that drives home the point of Proverbs 18:21. As the story goes (and five versions of this appear in Greek literature), Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel one day asked his servant to go to buy some good food for him in the market. When the servant returned home, he presented the rabbi with a tongue.

The next day, the rabbi told the servant to go to the market to buy some bad food. Again, the servant returned with a tongue.

When the rabbi asked the servant why he returned with a tongue both times, the servant made this astute observation: "Good comes from it and bad comes from it. When the tongue is good, there is nothing better, and when it is bad, there is nothing worse."

31. 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.

32. History of Christ the King Sunday

Illustration

Brett Blair

This is actually a pretty new festival in the church year. Its roots go back only to the early 1900's, when the world's great empires British, American, Spanish, French, German, Russian, Japanese were all at war or about to go to war somewhere.

The man who was the pope of the Roman Catholic Church at the time wrote a letter in which he dedicated the world to Christ the King. In the letter, he reminded the empires that God is present with the whole human race, even with those who do not know God.

After World War I, Pope Pius XI designated the last Sunday in October as Christ the King Sunday, a day to remember that Christ received power and honor from God and was thereby made ruler of the universe. Christ the King Sunday is the last Sunday of the church year for good reason. It's a time to reflect on Christ's return at the end of time to rule over all creation, a theme which echoes throughout Revelation, the last book of the Bible. But here's the powerful thing about this celebration. Pope Pius created the day because of the encroachment of secular forces upon society. Something he called anticlericalism.

In 1925 Pope Pius XI wrote the following:

If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anticlericalism, its errors and impious activities.

With the term “anticlericalism,” Pius XI sums up the multifaceted war waged against Christianity by modern revolutions, characterized by a ferocious and indeed demonic hatred of the church, clergy, celibacy, religious life, communion, crucifixes, church buildings, parochial schools, the cross and Gospel, and anything that belonged to or bore the mark of the Church. “Anticlericalism” is a fitting term for all this.

It was an ideological war whose roots were only beginning to grow, and after decades of deep roots, has only now blossomed in our generation.

Pius XI continues:

This evil spirit, as you are well aware, venerable brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation—that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the State and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further, and wished to set up in the place of God’s religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God.

The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences. We lamented these in the encyclical Ubi Arcano; we lament them today: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society, in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin.

33. The Friendship Ring

Illustration

John E. Sumwalt

It was a bright, sunshiny day and Margie was very happy. It was her birthday. She was seven years old. That afternoon, Margie's mother gave her a party. All of her friends were there. They played games, and ate lots of cake and ice cream. Margie blew out all of the candles on her cake in one blow. Her friends cheered and urged her to open her presents. She got a bracelet, a new blouse, a baby doll, and a book of adventure stories. But her favorite gift was a friendship ring from her best friend, Helen. It was silver and had a red heart in its center. Margie told Helen that it was the best present she had ever received, and she promised she would wear it everywhere.

The next day a beautiful woman came to Margie's school to talk to the students about hungry children. The beautiful woman was a famous movie actress who had given a year of her life to traveling as a goodwill ambassador for UNICEF. (Do you know what UNICEF is?) She told them about all of the hungry children she had visited in refugee camps around the world. (Do you know what a refugee camp is? Who lives in a refugee camp?)

In Cambodia she had met a hungry boy who told her, "Sometimes I cry, but only when it rains, so the other children will not see." Then she said, "You and I can help wipe away his tears."

She told about several refugee camps in Somalia, Ethiopia, Uganda and a little country called Djibouti, all on the Horn of Africa. "In one of the refugee camps water is so scarce," she said, "that the woman dig in brown mud, and that's what they drink." She told the children that millions of people would soon die in these refugee camps unless the world did something to help them.

In another refugee camp she met a little girl who owned nothing in life but a tiny ring with a red glass stone in it. The little girl had taken off her ring and given it to her to give to some child who needed it more.

When the beautiful woman had finished speaking, all of the students in Margie's school crowded around her to thank her and to ask for her autograph. When it was Margie's turn she stepped up to her and took off the silver ring with the red heart in its center, gave it to the beautiful woman, and said, "When you meet a little girl in one of those refugee camps who needs a ring, please give this to her."

Just then the teacher came up and said, "Oh, no, Margie, you shouldn't give your ring. What would your parents say?" But the beautiful woman said, "Let her give what she can. She may not always have so much to give or the heart to give it."

Author's Note: This story was inspired by an article about actress Liv Ullman, which appeared in "The Wisconsin State Journal," Section 7, page 2, May 3, 1981.

34. The Magna Carta of the Human Soul

Illustration

Leonard Sweet

In 1215 the English barons, fed up with the wimpy, weak‑willed rule of King John, forced their way into London. They brought with them a new document for the king to sign. Wisely, the King signed and sealed it at Runnymede, a water-meadow about twenty miles southwest of London.

We know this document today as the "Magna Carta," the "Great Charter," or literally, the "Great Paper." This ground‑breaking document forced the King to acknowledge limitations on his ruling rights, forced him to accept the strictures of legal proceedings, and generally acknowledge that the King's will was also bound by laws.

The "Magna Carta" was the foundational document that led to the establishment of constitutional law. Without the Magna Carta there would have been no United States Constitution. Without the Magna Carta, there would have been no right of "habeas corpus," no right of "due process," no independence of the church. The most basic human rights, the most basic limitations on the power of the state over the individual, are found in this first fledgling document. The absolute power of the monarch was reigned in and individual rights and responsibilities were given legal status.

But really, the Magna Carta was a 1200 year-old after‑thought. The Magna Carta offered legal and political validation to truths that had been declared in print since the First and Second Testaments had been put into written words. The Magna Carta codified laws for the relationship between the state and the individual human being. Scripture lays out a "Magna Carta" for embodying true humanity, for living as one who is authentically human, as one created in the image of God.

35. The Law of Unintended Consequences

Illustration

Simon Ateba

In ancient Rome, a group of men loyal to the Republic feared that Julius Caesar was going to make his dictatorship permanent and establish a monarchy. In 44 BC, they decided to assassinate him, thereby restoring the Republic.

In the ensuing chaos and power vacuum, Caesar's great nephew Octavius quickly rose to the top, assumed power, and permanently ended the Republic by establishing a de facto monarchy. After Caesar's death, it came out that he had never intended to create a monarchical system. The conspirators brought about precisely what they had tried to stop.

In 19th-century India, under British colonial rule, authorities decided there were too many venomous cobras in the streets of Delhi, making life uncomfortable for the British residents and their families. To solve this, they offered a reward for every dead cobra residents would bring in. Soon, enterprising locals began to breed cobras in order to make a living from the bounty. The government caught on to this and canceled the program. The breeders, resentful of the rulers and angered by their actions, decided to release their cobras back on the streets, thereby tripling the population from before the government program.

Other notorious examples would include the 18th Amendment establishing prohibitions in the United States in 1920, which was designed to stop the spread of alcoholism but only ended up increasing alcohol consumption by a substantial amount.

Another example is the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese in 1941, designed to decimate the US Naval force in one blow and bring America to its knees. Instead, it shook the American public out of its deep isolationism, ensuring the total mobilization of the country's superior manpower and resources to not only defeat the Japanese but also to obliterate its military for good. The very success of the attack guaranteed the opposite of the intended result, Robert Greene writes in his spectacular book, "The Laws of Human Nature."

36. Preparation for Christ's Coming

Illustration

Billy D. Strayhorn

Maybe you've heard the story of the little boy who decided to write a letter to God one Christmas. He started out by writing: "Dear God, I've been a really good boy this year." Unfortunately, he remembered that God was all knowing and all seeing and he decided that he couldn't lie to God. So, he crumpled up that letter and started over. This time he wrote: "Dear God, I know I haven't done everything I should have, but I really tried to be good." He stopped and crumpled up that letter, too. It was obvious that he was struggling with what to write to God.

As he sat there thinking he looked up and saw his mother's favorite piece of sculpture on the mantel. It was a beautiful rendition of the Madonna, the mother of Christ. The boy perked up and ran out of the room. He came back with a towel and a shoebox. He walked over, carefully picked up the Madonna, gently wrapped it in the towel, carefully put it in the shoebox and then hid it in the closet. He immediately went back to the table and wrote: "Dear God, if you ever want to see your mother again . . ."

It's time the Church took back Christmas. And we do. Every year we take it back and bring back the meaning and the purpose. The world tries to hold it for ransom each year, with its multiplicity of gadgets and this year's list of must have toys; the world tries to make demands and hold Christmas for ransom but it never works. The birth of the Christ child is just too powerful, even for Wall Street. The sight and the sounds and the remembrance of this child born so long ago changes all the rules. His very presence makes the glitter of our Christmas presents pale in comparison.

37. An Institute By Smithson

Illustration

Michael P. Green

Born in 1765 in France, James Smithson was the illegitimate son of a prominent English duke (Hugh Percy, 1st Duke of Northumberland) and a direct lineal descendant of King Henry VII through his mother (Elizabeth Hungerford Keate Macie). Branded as a bastard, James was refused British citizenship and denied a rich inheritance through his true father. Due to this rejection the young Smithson felt constrained to succeed at whatever he did, and he became one of England’s leading scientists and a member of the Royal Society (the chief association of leading scientists) at the age of twenty-two.

In 1829 Smithson, who never married, died and left his considerable fortune to a nephew. Rumor had it that the terms of Smithson’s will stipulated that his entire estate was to go to one recipient upon the nephew’s death. The English scientific community hoped that he had made sizable grants to their favorite institutions. But when the terms of the will were made public they were shocked!

Smithson had written: “Just as England has rejected me, so have I rejected England.” During Smithson’s lifetime, England had fought two bitter wars with her rebellious colonies in America. So, to show his utter contempt for those who had mistreated him, he gave everything to the United States Government for the establishment of a scientific institution in the young nation’s capital. To this day the Smithsonian Institution is recognized as one of the most prominent institutions of its kind in the world. England made the tremendous mistake of thinking that she had no need of this man, from whom she might have benefited greatly.

Let us be careful of saying to some member of the body of Christ, “I have no need of you,” only to find that the same member could have met some of our greatest spiritual needs.

Note: Most of the facts of this story are true. Wikipedia demonstrates that he was naturalized as a British citizen. So that's probably an error in the story. Likewise, the part of his being mistreated and contempt being the motive for the inheritance going to the founding of the Smithsonian Institute seems doubtful. The legal will stipulated that should certain events occur, like the fortune being unclaimed due to the death of heirs, the fortune would then go to the establishment of the SI in the Americas. Those events occurred. Per Wikipedia:

"Smithson never married and had no children; therefore, when he wrote his will, he left his estate to his nephew, or his nephew's family if his nephew died before Smithson. If his nephew were to die without heirs, however, Smithson's will stipulated that his estate be used "to found in Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men". He died in Genoa, Italy on 27 June 1829, aged 64. Six years later, in 1835, his nephew died without heir, setting in motion the bequest to the United States. In this way Smithson became the patron of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. despite having never visited the United States."

38. Still A Threat

Illustration

Lest we be too critical of Jerusalem, ask yourself this question: What city even today would not be shaken by Jesus' entry into it? Imagine Jesus entering New York, Belgrade, Washington, or even (add your city here). Oh, I'm sure we'd welcome him with our hosannas - at first, anyway. We'd line the streets and strike up the band and have a grand parade right down Main Street. But I'm equally sure that, by the end of the week, we'd have him nailed to a cross, too. Why? Because the Kingdom Jesus came to establish still threatens the kingdoms of this world -- your kingdom and mine -- the kingdoms where greed, power, and lust rule instead of grace, mercy, and peace. And who among us really wants to surrender our lives to that Kingdom and that King?

39. Dad's Favorite Sayings

Illustration

Staff

Dad's are always giving advice. Perhaps you have heard a few of these from your father:

The man on the top of the mountain didn't fall there.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Marry a big woman; someone to give you shade in the summer and warmth in the winter.
An excuse is a poor patch for the garment of failure.
Never try to catch two frogs with one hand.
Always throw away the box when you take the last piece of candy.
Honesty is like a trail, once you get off it you realize you are lost.
Remember who you are and where you came from.
Wherever you are in life, first make friends with the cook.
Don't shake the tree too hard, you never know what might fall out.
A closed mouth gathers no feet.
Measure twice, cut once. San
The second time you get kicked in the head by a mule it's not a learning experience.
Never buy anything that eats.
You need to do what you have to do before you can do what you want to do.
Well, you know what happens when you wrestle with pigs, you get all dirty and they love it.
This is a democratic family; everyone gets a vote and I get five.
If you're afraid to go too far, you will never go far enough.
If you don't need it, don't buy it.
If this is the worst thing that happens to you in life, don't worry about it.
Never be so broke that you cannot afford to pay attention.
You live to work, you work to live, but if you work to work I hope you don't live by me.
If it is to be, it's up to me.
Successful people make a habit of doing things that failures don't like to do.
Don't let your studies interfere with your education.
Don't be foolish just because you know how to.
Marry your best friend.
Peer pressure is a crack in the armor of your own conviction.
Knowing what's right from wrong is education, doing what's right is execution. The latter is the hard part.
The difference always is attitude.
You have to eat an elephant in small bites.
The one who quits last wins.
Potential means you haven't done your best yet.
Do you know what happened when I found out all the answers? They changed all the questions.
The golden rule: the guy who's got the gold makes the rules.
If everybody else is doing it, it is probably wrong.

40. A Healthy Church

Illustration

Kevin Harney

Picture a church in which everyone wants to be served. Each person believes the church exists to meet their needs, to make them happy, and to cater to their whims and tastes. Imagine a congregation in which everyone has a “take care of me” attitude and is quick to complain whenever things are not just the way they feel they should be. Sadly, some people don’t have to use their imagination to picture such a church.

This kind of church will never have a positive impact on the world. It will grow small, inward, and unhealthy. This kind of church does not honor Jesus and bring glory to God. This is not a church ruled by a servant spirit.

Now imagine a church in which every single person has a passion to serve others. Think about what God could do through a group of people who are committed to sacrificial ministry to each other. These people know that the Holy Spirit has given each of them unique abilities (spiritual gifts) that are to be used for building up people and bringing glory to God. So they are purposeful about discovering their gifts and developing and using them.

What could God do through such a church?

We are either on the stretcher or helping carry it. There are times we need to be served. But most of the time, we are called to serve others. The bottom line is that God wants each of us to help carry people through their times of need. The church was never meant to be a bunch of people watching as a few exhausted workers strain to carry the burdens of a whole congregation . . . A church filled with people who serve will change the world.”

41. Tell Me About the Spitfires!

Illustration

John G. Lynch

During World War II the Royal Air Force flew Danny's favorite plane of all time: the Spitfire. Watching those things fly all over the RKO newsreels the young boy came to believe they were dauntless. If a pilot flew a Spitfire, Danny thought, he would always hit his target, and he would always return home.

One day the British Consul from Minneapolis came to Danny's town to visit. Danny's dad was chairman of the County War Bond drive so that gave him the honor of entertaining the British Consul in his home. His mother, Suzanne, went crazy with preparations. She brought in all her friends; she hired a German woman to clean the house; she went downtown to buy a new dress.

The day the Consul arrived 40 people crammed into three rooms to welcome this man. Each one of those people couldn't wait to tell this tall, thin diplomat from England about the town, about how patriotic it was, about how he or she had a great-aunt in London, about how well the war was going. They all had plenty to say.

Suzanne was running around fractiously trying to serve everybody and greet everybody, and make sure everybody had a place to sit, and did they want more of this -- in general, were they having a good time.

Finally the British Consul sat down. For a split second he was actually by himself. The hostess had left to get him a drink; all the other guests momentarily turned away. Danny saw his chance. He ran to him. Even though the Consul was sitting, the boy still had to stand to whisper into his ear: "Tell me about Spitfires!"

The tall man looked at the eight-year-old. He smiled, he relaxed, and he said, "Spitfires? I'll tell you a story about Spitfires. I flew one early in the war. It was splendid. I shot down a Messerschmidt and I came home alive. The next time I wasn't so lucky. That's why I'm not flying anymore. What is your name? I'll send you some pictures of Spitfires."

About a month later a letter came from Minneapolis. Inside was a folder about Spitfires and a note from the Consul: "Dear Danny. I enjoyed talking with you. Good luck." He signed his name.

Danny was the only person who didn't barrage the Consul's ears with information about the town and American patriotism. This small boy was the only one who said, "Tell me about Spitfires." He was the only one who actually listened to him -- even if it was just for a few minutes!

In today's gospel lesson Jesus needs somebody to listen. He has just begun his journey to Jerusalem where he knows he will travel the bitter road of the cross and he will experience the loneliness of being denied, abandoned, and betrayed by his disciples. Martha may think her tasks have a high level of importance and at another time she would be right but not now. Now, it is time to sit and listen.

42. O Little Town of Bethlehem: A Story of Faith

Illustration

Keith Wagner

One of my all time favorite Christmas hymns is "O Little Town of Bethlehem." It has been around since 1868. It is packed with emotion, a song about the Christ Child, born to Mary, a song filled with the creative power of God intervening in history with the gift of a savior. It's a story where the divine and the human come together in an amazing but humble way.

What might surprise you is how this great hymn came to be. It was written by Phillips Brooks, Episcopal priest. Brooks was serving the Holy Trinity Church in the City of Brotherly Love (Philadelphia, PA). He had just returned from a trip to The Holy Land which inspired him to write the words. "When he returned to America he still had Palestine singing in his soul." (from Stories of Christmas Carols by Ernest K. Emurian, Baker Book House Co., page 97)

Brooks was a bachelor. His church organist and Sunday School superintendent, Lewis Redner was also a bachelor and Brooks gave the words to him and asked him to create a tune for the upcoming Christmas celebration. Redner procrastinated and struggled with the creation of a tune to go with the 5 stanzas that Brooks had written. It wasn't until the night before the celebration that Redner got inspired in the middle of the night and created the song as we know it. The following day a group of 36 children and 6 Sunday school teachers introduced the song created by the 2 bachelors. That was on December 27th, 1868. It wasn't published as an official hymn of the Episcopal Church until 1892. The following January, Phillips Brooks died, never knowing the magnitude of the hymn that he created.

For some reason the 5th stanza has been dropped from the original score."Where children pure and happy Pray to the blessed Child, Where misery cries out to thee, Son of the mother mild; Where charity stands watching And faith holds wide the door, The dark night wakes, the glory breaks, And Christmas comes once more." The stanza includes the line, "And faith holds wide the door."

This hymn, like the story of the annunciation of Mary in the gospel of Luke, is a story about faith.

43. MAGICIAN, SORCERER

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Micah 5:12 - "and I will cut off sorceries from your hand, and you shall have no more soothsayers;"

Acts 8:9 - "But there was a man named Simon who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the nation of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great."

Throughout history man has been fascinated by the thought of defying or controlling the laws of nature. A man who can place his hand in a roaring fire and bring it out unharmed will attract as much attention today as he did 5,000 years ago. Primitive peoples worshiped sun gods, moon gods, river gods, and forest gods, and their priests often claimed that they could persuade these dieties to do their bidding. It was also commonly believed that hosts of spirits, both good and evil, inhabited the earth and that they could, if they desired, grant any human being the most miraculous powers.

Magic, the performance of seemingly impossible acts, was orginally an important part of religion. Such works as Homer’s ODYSSEY and THE ARABIAN NIGHTS depict the ancient world as a place of mystery and miracles, where only those religions which offered "proof" of the gods’ powers could survive for very long. The responsibility for providing this proof lay with the priests, who were probably the world’s first magicians.

The priests’ magic was of two kinds. First, there was the magic which they were SUPPOSED to perform. Like the rain dancers among the American Indians of today, the ancient priests were supposed to be able to control the elements for the good of their people. They were supposed to be able to call upon the evil spirits to destroy their enemies and through the assistance of supernatural powers to be able to foretell the future. This was primarily the field of the sorcerer.

This was geniune magic, which for many centuries remained the special province of the priest. The Old Testament tells of Hebrew prophets who competed with the priests of Egypt to prove the superiority of their magic and, consequently, of their religion. Early Christian missionaries entered into similar contests with pagan priests. In time, however, Christianity and magic became violently opposed, and during the Middle Ages those who claimed miraculous powers were regarded as the Devil’s servants. Their unholy practices were called BLACK MAGIC.

But magic was probably as generally accepted in the Middle Ages as it had been in the ancient world. It is interesting to note that all of the references to magic in the Bible are prohibitions against it, which is natural enough, since it not only implied acceptance of heathen tenets, but also denigrated God. However, we find that the prohibitions are so frequent that we are led to conclude that the people themselves indulged extensively. And it continued so down through the ages. In medieval times, everyone believed in witchcraft (how about the resurgence of that belief today!), and the most learned men used weird rites and incantations in their attempts to learn the secrets of the universe. They sought to summon good or evil spirits and to raise up the spirits of the dead. They experimented with astrology and gazed into crystal balls to divine what was in store for their noble patrons. And today, astrologers, palmists, crystalgazers and clairvoyants continue to reveal the future to eager customers.

This type of magic is called natural because no supernatural claims to power are ever made in connection with it. In fact, the magicians who perform it are, as a rule, the most outspoken skeptics on the subject of genuine magic. It is their business to mystify, and they know that their public is easily fooled. They achieve their effects by the skillful use of illusioned trickery.

The first magicians of this type were probably those very priests who were supposed to perform genuine magic. To mystify and impress their followers they used tricks which were closely related to the modern magician’s stock in trade. Perhaps the purest and oldest form of natural magic is the sleight of hand, or legerdemain. The priest who failed to make the rain fall might regain prestige by making a pebble disappear with a clever twist of his wrist. Pebbles and similar small objects have been "disappearing" up magicians’ sleeves for centuries.

It is believed that ancient priests also made use of mechanical equipment and whatever knowledge of science they possessed to mystify visitors to their temples and shrines. Like modern performers they had foolproof methods of prophesying, of reading minds, and of conjuring up spirits. The history of natural magic is largely the story of refining and developing the certain methods of trickery. It’s not hard to see why the practitioners of these arts were strictly anathematized by the Lord!

44. My Mother Taught Me…

Illustration

My mother taught me TO APPRECIATE A JOB WELL DONE. "If you're going to kill each other, do it outside. I just finished cleaning."
My mother taught me RELIGION. "You better pray that will come out of the carpet."
My mother taught me about TIME TRAVEL. "If you don't straighten up, I'm going to knock you into the middle of next week!"
My mother taught me LOGIC. "Because I said so, that's why."
My mother taught me MORE LOGIC. "If you fall out of that swing and break your neck, you're not going to the store with me."
My mother taught me FORESIGHT. "Make sure you wear clean underwear, in case you're in an accident."
My mother taught me IRONY. "Keep crying, and I'll give you something to cry about."
My mother taught me about the science of OSMOSIS. "Shut your mouth and eat your supper."
My mother taught me about CONTORTIONISM. "Will you look at that dirt on the back of your neck!"
My mother taught me about STAMINA. "You'll sit there until all that spinach is gone."
My mother taught me about WEATHER. "This room of yours looks as if a tornado went through it."
My mother taught me about HYPOCRISY. "If I told you once, I've told you a million times. Don't exaggerate!"
My mother taught me the CIRCLE OF LIFE. "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out."
My mother taught me about BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION. "Stop acting like your father!"
My mother taught me about ENVY. "There are millions of less fortunate children in this world who don't have wonderful parents like you do."
My mother taught me about ANTICIPATION. "Just wait until we get home."
My mother taught me about RECEIVING. "You are going to get it when you get home!"
My mother taught me MEDICAL SCIENCE. "If you don't stop crossing your eyes, they are going to freeze that way."
My mother taught me ESP. "Put your sweater on; don't you think I know when you are cold?"
My mother taught me HUMOR. "When that lawn mower cuts off your toes, don't come running to me."
My mother taught me HOW TO BECOME AN ADULT. "If you don't eat your vegetables, you'll never grow up."
My mother taught me GENETICS. "You're just like your father."
My mother taught me about my ROOTS. "Shut that door behind you. Do you think you were born in a barn?"
My mother taught me WISDOM. "When you get to be my age, you'll understand."
And my favorite: My mother taught me about JUSTICE. "One day you'll have kids, and I hope they turn out just like you!"

45. Healing - Gone With One Call

Illustration

Philip Yancey

Even back then I was searching for hard evidence of God as an alternative to faith. And one day I found it on television, of all places. While randomly flipping a dial, I came across a mass healing service being conducted by Kathryn Kuhlman. I watched for a few minutes as she brought various people up on the stage and interviewed them. Each one told an amazing story of supernatural healing. Cancer, heart conditions, paralysis it was like a medical encyclopedia up there. As I watched Kuhlman's program, my doubts gradually melted away. At last I had found something real and tangible. Kuhlman asked a musician to sing her favorite song, "He Touched Me. That's what I needed, I thought; a touch, a personal touch from God. She held out that promise, and I lunged for it.

Three weeks later when Kathryn Kuhlman came to a neighboring state, I skipped classes and traveled half a day to attend one of her meetings. The atmosphere was unbelievably charged soft organ music in the background; the murmuring sound of people praying aloud, some in strange tongues; and every few minutes a happy interruption when someone would stand and claim, "I'm healed!" One person especially made an impression, a man from Milwaukee who had been carried into the meeting on a stretcher. When he walked yes, walked onstage, we all cheered wildly. He told us he was a physician, and I was even more impressed. He had incurable lung cancer, he said, and was told he had six months to live. But now, tonight, he believed God had healed him. He was walking for the first time in months. He felt great. Praise God! I wrote down the man's name and practically floated out of that meeting. I had never known such certainty of faith before. My search was over; I had seen proof of a living God in those people on the stage. If he could work tangible miracles in them, then surely he had something wonderful in store for me.

I wanted to contact the man of faith I had seen at the meeting, so much so that exactly one week later I phoned Directory Assistance in Milwaukee and got the physician's number. When I dialed it, a woman answered the phone. "May I please speak to Dr. S_____," I said. Long silence. "Who are you?" she said at last. I figured she was just screening calls from patients or something. I gave my name and told her I admired Dr. S_____ and had wanted to talk to him ever since the Kathryn Kuhlman meeting. I had been very moved by his story, I said. Another long silence. Then she spoke in a flat voice, pronouncing each word slowly. "My...husband...is...dead." Just that one sentence, nothing more, and she hung up.

I can't tell you how that devastated me. I was wasted. I half-staggered into the next room, where my sister was sitting. "Richard, what's wrong?" she asked. "Are you all right?" No, I was not all right. But I couldn't talk about it. I was crying. My mother and sister tried to pry some explanation out of me. But what could I tell them? For me, the certainty I had staked my life on had died with that phone call. A flame had flared bright for one fine, shining week and then gone dark, like a dying star.

46. Right Questions

Illustration

James W. Moore

I am a collector of lists. I want to share with you this morning my favorite list of all time. It's a list of answers given by English school children on their religion exams.

Noah's wife was called Joan of the Ark.
A myth is a female moth.
Sometimes it is difficult to hear in church because the agnostics are so terrible.
The Pope lives in a vacuum.
The Fifth Commandment is "Humor your father and mother."

This is my favorite of all:

Lot's wife was a pillar of salt by day and a ball of fire by night.

The point is: right answers are important, but have you thought about this - so are right questions! So the right question I want to raise with you today is this: How long has it been since you had a powerful moment that changed your life forever?

47. The Greatest Sentence Ever Written

Illustration

Mark Trotter

A teacher, every year in her fifth grade class, had what she called the Scholastic Olympics. What happened was that she would ask each child to pick a sentence from literature, name the author and source from which it came, and then explain why this sentence could be called the most important sentence ever written. You can probably guess what some of the entries were, like "Fourscore and seven years ago," and "All people are created equal." A lot of political phrases like that. There were also a lot of literary phrases, like "To be or not to be." The girl who got the most points for knowing that "To be or not to be" was from a play got some points taken away because she said the author was a writer for the Bill Cosby Show.

There were fourteen entries of the same biblical verse, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," probably because the teacher had said that was her favorite verse.

You know what sentence won? It was not written by a famous author at all. It wasn't to be found in any literary source. It appeared on a postcard from Hawaii that one of these fifth grade girls received from her stepfather, who was on a honeymoon with the girl's mother. The teacher was uneasy about this, because the children were supposed to explain why this is the most important sentence ever written. But she let her speak. The girl said that until she received that postcard, she didn't know how her stepfather felt about her. The girl's entry won the prize. It was written on the back of a postcard from Waikiki Beach . It said, " Charlotte, I love you."

That's the greatest sentence ever written. And there are many variations of it. And wherever it is heard, and from whatever source it comes, it constitutes a blessing. It is here in this text this morning. It's here in the parable of the Prodigal Son, and it's addressed to everyone. To sons and to daughters, to prodigals and to the righteous: "Come home. I love you."

48. Symbols of the Greater Gift

Illustration

Andrew Wyermann

Pastor Andrew Wyermann told about a Christmas celebration in a nursing home. Listen to his story: I asked the folks to tell us about their favorite Christmas experience. The group seemed to light up. Spontaneously one by one they told their Christmas story. Each was different except in one respect. Every experience was taken from their childhood. They did not remember Christmas as a parent, but as a child.

Then I turned the question on myself. I, too, returned to my childhood.

The first, and perhaps most memorable, experience I recalled took place when I was seven years old. Early Christmas Eve, my mother took my brother and me out for a treat. It was her way to get us out of our fifth-floor apartment in the Bronx while my father prepared for the evening festivity.

As we climbed the stairs back to the apartment, the shrill sound of a whistle filled the hallway. What was that, and where did it come from? Our pace quickened and a second burst of the whistle could be heard. We dashed into the apartment. There was my father playing engineer with the biggest Lionel train ever made. It was so magnificent, so unexpected, so wonderful!

Some fifty years later, I still have the train set and cherish it as much as any material gift I ever received from my parents. The train is a warm reminder of the greater gift my parents gave me. This gift has nothing to do with any material advantages, or even with any piece of sage advice. Unconditional love was their gift. I never doubted their care for me, and from such grace sprang my own capacity to truth.

It was years later that I fully understood the gift my parents gave me had its source in God's gift of the Child to us all. The sound of the whistle and the song of the angels have become one and the same. They are both the signal of God's love.

49. Human Government

Illustration

Charles Colson

Though it is hard to pen scripture down on exactly what role government has in the Christian's life, the following is offered as a starting point: The general function of human government, as instituted by God, may be said to be threefold: to protect, punish, and promote.

The Function of Protection: The moment Adam sinned it was obvious that civilizations would need some form of restraint and rule to protect citizens from themselves. An example of this function is seen in Acts 21:27-37 where Roman soldiers step in and save Paul from being murdered by his own enraged countrymen in Jerusalem.
The Function of Punishment: Both Paul and Peter bring this out. Paul writes that duly appointed human officials are to be regarded as God's servants to "bear the sword," that is, to impose punishment upon criminals (vv. 3,4). Peter tells us that governors are "sent by him for the punishment of evildoers" (1 Pet 2:13, 14).
The Function of Promotion: Human government is to promote the general welfare of the community where its laws are in effect. Paul commands us to pray for human leaders "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (1 Tim 2:1,2). New King James Version Notes, Thomas Nelson, p. 1152

Converesly, we have a responsibility to human government. It is impossible for a believer to be a good Christian and a bad citizen at the same time. As children of God our responsibility to human government is threefold:

We are to recognize and accept that the powers that be are ordained by God. "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." (Rom 13:1) This truth applies even to atheistic human governments unless, of course, the law is anti- scriptural. In that situation the believer must obey God rather than man (Acts 4:18-20). In fact, when Paul wrote those words in Romans 13:1, the evil emperor Nero was on the throne. See also Titus 3:1.
We are to pay our taxes to human government (Matt 17:24-7; 22:21, Rom 13:7).
We are to pray for the leaders in human government. "Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior" (1 Tim 2:1-3). New King James Version Notes, Thomas Nelson, p. 1270

We are to take responsibility for the right ordering of civil society without falling prey to the idea that it is within our power to build the Kingdom of God on earth.

50. Good Communion Table Manners

Illustration

Alex Gondola

As we come to the Lord's Table, we're all sinners in need of salvation, beggars needing bread. We are "the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind" in that third story. Maybe not literally poor, crippled, lame, and blind, but spiritually poor, crippled, lame, and blind. Yet God graciously includes us as guests at God's Table. Good communion table manners include coming to the table without thinking too much of ourselves.

And, finally, good communion table manners include coming without looking down on any other guest, for all of us are God's equally beloved guests. King George IV desired Communion and sent a servant to bring the Bishop of Winchester. When the servant arrived with the Bishop, the King was angry. He felt his servant had taken too long. The King upbraided the man and fired him on the spot.

Having done that, he turned to the Bishop for Communion. But the Bishop refused to proceed. He saw that the King was still angry. Realizing the Bishop was right, the King called for his servant, apologized, and restored the man's job. Only then could Communion proceed. Part of good table manners is extending graciousness to the other guests. As we have been forgiven and welcomed by God, let us forgive and welcome each other.

Showing 1 to 50 of 169 results