Sermon and Worship Resources

John 18:28-40 · Jesus Before Pilate

28 Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?"

30 "If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you."

31 Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." 32 "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected. This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.

33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

34 "Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"

35 "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

37 "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

38 "What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him. 39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?"

40 They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.

Uh-Huh!

John 18:33-37

Sermon
by Leonard Sweet

Long ago Hosea gave some advice: "Take with you words and turn to the Lord." Today we take some tragically misplaced words such as "character," "honor," and "integrity," as well as their post-modern reincarnations as the "right thing," the "right stuff," and the "right one," and once again turn to the Lord.

At the time of this writing probably the hottest new media blitz is the stylish and witty Diet Pepsi commercials. With the aid of jazz great Ray Charles, these musical ditties proclaim, "You got the Right One baby, Uh-huh!"

It is an ingenious advertising idea that verges on the subliminal: Take one of the most common phrases used in the English language and design a marketing campaign around it so that whenever anyone says "Uh-huh" they will think either consciously or subconsciously of Diet Pepsi. You might tell your people that this sermon is an exercise in theological deprogramming, so that when they say this phrase from now on they will think of something more true and good than Diet Pepsi. You should also get the congregation to say out loud at least once, "Uh-huh." Indeed, if I were preaching this sermon I would engage in some interactive preaching by announcing to them that whenever they heard these words "the right one, baby?" they were to respond by saying either "Uh-huh!" (i.e., yes) or Uh-uh!" (i.e., no).

Before the small screen discovered the marketing potential of the "right," there was irreverent director Spike Lee's smash big-screen hit of the early 90s urging a confused generation in confusing situations to "Do the Right Thing." Even the feel-good, extravagant 80s examined its own quest for this elusive quality in yet another film, "The Right Stuff."

Yet instead of successfully touching our own interior character, these three forays into the search for "rightness" have simply become cliched components of everyday conversation. The "Uh-huh" soft drink scions are not convincing us to choose on the basis of quality - they only offer a slick image with no content. A recent Roper poll of 1,496 U.S. consumers found that 52 percent said they would pay 10 percent more for so-called socially responsible products and 67 percent said they are concerned about a company's social performance when they shop. More and more people are wanting to pick "the right one" when they shop (Newsweek, 7 January 1991, 42). But all Madison Avenue advertisers offer the consumer is image. You got the right one, baby? (Hope they say "Uh uh!")

The "right thing" touted in Spike Lee's film wavers on the wispy barometer of current popular opinion. It touts almost a characterless character. No wonder the street kids confront their world with ambivalence one minute and explosive anger the next. Paul Faber writes in the Reformed Journal ("Arguments Above, "July 1981): "I am not a biblical scholar, but I cannot recall any passage that says, 'Thus saith the Lord: Everybody is entitled to his own opinion.' I do not read that Christ ever responded to the Pharisees by saying, 'Though I do not agree, yours is a valid interpretation.' We do not read these things because if one believes that there is truth and that what is not true is false, then one takes seriously ... the attempt to find the truth' (4). Is the right one the "right thing"? Do we have here the right one, baby? (Again, hope they say "Uh-uh!")

Typical of the last decade's love affair with gimmicks and its "gimme" attitude, it is difficult to discern what exactly is the "right stuff" in that film's tale of the American space program. Is the right stuff the astronauts with nerves of steel, or is it the sleek and daring machines they develop to aid them in the exploration of the new frontier beyond our atmosphere? "Stealing God's Stuff' is a phrase coined by E. B. White to refer to the way we easily get in the act of "playing God." Technology is the quickest route we have to "stealing God's stuff. " Is the "right one" the "right stuff?" Do we have yet the right one, baby? (Again, hope they say "Uh-uh!")

Too often we let the world's definitions determine what versions of the "truth" the church will offer, even to the point of accommodating fanciful standards of moral behavior and character. Today, for example, many perceive personal and communal "integrity" as a luxury they simply can no longer afford. For these the "Golden Rule" (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you), long observed mainly in the breech, has pitched down a steeply declining grade of mineral - defined by cheapened values and identified by cheaper ores. There is the "Silver Rule" - "Do unto others as they have already done unto you. " Then the "Bronze Rule" - "Do unto others as you fully expect them to do unto you. " Then the "Copper Rule" - "Do unto others before they do unto you." And finally the "Iron Rule" - "Do unto others and cut out." These latter rules fit all too precisely into our current, competitive, cut-throat culture.

Goethe said that "Character is the sum of all I have struggled with." Ingredients in the continuing struggle to construct character include developing a vision and a purpose, a vision to always stand before you, a purpose to always stand beside you. Coupled with these must be ambition and disciplined aim and action that work in tandem with that purposeful vision. Tempering all these must be a moral quality that looks to the common good, not just self-interest. Even a tornado can be said to have ambition and action. But it has no good purpose, and it certainly does not consider the common good as a valid objective.

From this week's gospel text Pilate's words in verse 35 accuse the character of the Jews, ("I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me.") while betraying his own weakness of character and indecision. Even though the Jews had abrogated their right to deal with Jesus, Pilate refused to shoulder the moral weight of this peculiar matter. All those in positions of authority found themselves shuffling their feet and pointing to the other guy for the final word.

Not one person or group with power could bring themselves to stand against this snowballing forfeiture of justice. It was easier for the religious authorities to pass Jesus over to the Roman political machine. The civil rulers then feigned ignorance of the injustice because they were not Jewish and thus were incapable of properly understanding the issue. Notwithstanding everyone's protestations to the contrary, Jesus stood alone in the room as the only person with a clear conscience. It is still often that case today, as we find ourselves mouthing reasonable explanations and excuses while our souls squirm within our narrow minds.

Jesus' answer to Pilate's final query about his kingship must have hit home, stabbing deeply beneath Pilate's thin protective shell of official duty. I have come, Jesus declares, to "testify to the truth" as he affirms that "everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice" (vs. 37). But disciples are not automatically assigned a high moral character. Nor do they automatically receive a heightened sense of truth, integrity or rightness when they join the church. The struggle to hear Jesus' voice of truth remains one which takes our full attention for the entire duration of our discipleship.

Jesus is the right stuff! Jesus did the right thing! You got the right one, baby? Uh-Huh!

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

Overview and Insights · Jesus before Pilate (18:28–19:16)

Jesus’s trial before Pilate is filled with irony. To begin with, the Jews bring Jesus to Pilate to obtain an execution order, but they refuse to enter the Roman palace because it would make them ceremonially unclean and prevent them from eating the Passover (18:28). The Jewish leaders need Pilate (and Rome) to condemn Jesus to death (18:31–32). Pilate asks Jesus whether he is “the king of the Jews” (18:33). Jesus eventually admits to being a king but states plainly that his kingdom is not of this world (18:36–37). Everyone on the side of truth listens to Jesus, but Pilate’s cynical question, “What is truth?” reveals his own heart (18:37–38). Pilate then declares no basis for charg…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

John 18:28-40 · Jesus Before Pilate

30 "If he were not a criminal," they replied, "we would not have handed him over to you."

33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

34 "Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"

35 "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

40 They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.

Commentary · Jesus Before Pilate

This entire narrative section bears the marks of a carefully written unit. Its dramatic suspense is second to none. Pilate moves in and out of the praetorium five times (18:29, 33, 38; 19:9, 13), establishing the innocence of Jesus and exploring his title of “king.” In fact, kingship weaves continuously through the story, becoming the principal theme (18:33, 36–37, 39; 19:2–3, 12, 14–15, 19–22) until Pilate’s caution turns to fear (19:8). Even when Jesus is crucified, Pilate insists on Jesus’s title in death (19:19–22).

Pilate meets with the Jewish leadership outside his residence so that they might not become ritually unclean due to contact with Gentiles (18:28). The accusation that Jesus is a criminal is less clear than the Synoptic charges that bring political offenses to mind (especially Luke 23:2). Pilate is initially unmoved and prefers to leave the case in Jewish courts, but his audience reminds him of the Roman restriction prohibiting the Jews from carrying out capital punishment.

Pilate now goes inside (18:33) to Jesus, who is in custody and speaks with him. In this round Pilate’s first inquiry is important: “king” was a political title that was enjoyed in Judea only by Herod the Great. Is Jesus making a political challenge with this word? Jesus accepts the title but redefines it: his kingdom is otherworldly. He is not an insurrectionist of the sort that Rome fears. Pilate feels no threat and glibly dismisses Jesus, but his closing remark (“What is truth?”) shows that he cannot be one who recognizes Jesus’s voice (18:38). Soon, however, Pilate’s interest will be piqued.

Jesus is innocent, and this judgment is conveyed outside (18:38). But since Pilate’s generous overture is rejected (18:39–40), Jesus is flogged, a severe punishment often preliminary to crucifixion. However, the mocking of the soldiers serves another purpose: this is Jesus’s symbolic coronation. He is hailed “king” and so arrayed (19:2–3), but Pilate hopes that the severity of Jesus’s pitiful condition and profuse bleeding will permit him to be released. Instead, Pilate is met with calls for death, which would usually give a governor no hesitation. But now the crowd offers a new title for Jesus: Jesus claims to be the Son of God. The round closes differently than the previous one. Pilate is afraid (19:8).

When Pilate reenters the praetorium, it is evident that the glib tone of 18:38 has disappeared. “Son of God” was a metaphysical claim; it evoked a meaning not unknown among Romans. Pilate’s initial question (19:9) shows that he is probing the identity of Jesus. Like Nicodemus earlier (3:1–21), Pilate is making a discreet inquiry. And like many who came to Jesus, he has to choose to follow the light or the darkness. Pilate’s reflex to his own power (19:10) is completely demolished when Jesus explains how the governor actually derives his power from God. Furthermore, Pilate has been the unwitting pawn of other powers, the Jews, who have instigated this trial (19:11). The round ends with Pilate’s earnest desire to release Jesus (cf. Matt. 27:18–19).

As Pilate readies himself to come outside, already voices meet him. But now a new threat is hurled at him, and his stamina collapses (19:12–16). “Friend of Caesar” (19:12) was a technical term meaning “loyal to Caesar,” and it referred to people who had distinguished themselves in imperial service. It was the guarantee of a good career. Therefore Pilate must choose between this new king and Caesar. In two discourses, Jesus described the dangerous temptation to regard secular acclaim above divine approval (5:44; 12:43).

Pilate chooses the former (19:13–16) and goes through the motions of making a judicial edict. The “Stone Pavement” (Aramaic gabbata, “elevated place”?) may have been a visible platform for such pronouncements. (Archaeologists claim to have found this pavement in the remains of the Antonia Fortress.) The time of this announcement, “about noon,” is indicated (19:14) because of a theme that will arise during the crucifixion. The hour of Jesus’s condemnation is the hour when the temple began to slaughter the ritual lambs for Passover. Jesus is one such lamb (19:31–36). The decision between Caesar and the king Jesus, weighed earlier by Pilate, is decided now by the chief priests (19:15). This is their irrevocable rejection of Christ: “We have no king but Caesar” (similarly, Matt. 27:24–25).

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

The sentencing of Jesus to death takes place within the framework of a series of exchanges between the Roman governor Pilate and the Jewish religious authorities. The time is from early morning (18:28) to noon (19:14) of the day after Jesus’ arrest. The structure of the narrative is determined by the fact that the Jewish authorities, for reasons of ritual purity, would not go inside the palace that served as Pilate’s headquarters (v. 28). Contact with the dwelling of a Gentile—even a temporary dwelling, for Pilate’s official residence was at Caesarea—would render them ceremonially unfit to eat the Passover meal. Because of this, the action shifts back and forth constantly between the inside and outside of the palace. Pilate himself is always in the center of the action, whether addressing the Jewish authorities outside the palace (18:29–32, 38b–40; 19:4–8, 12–16a) or dealing with Jesus within (18:33–38a; 19:1–3, 9–11). Each of these encounters makes its own contribution to an understanding both of Pilate himself and of the factors that inevitably led even such natural enemies as Pilate and the Jewish authorities to cooperate in Jesus’ death. The narrative may conveniently be divided into six scenes:

Pilate and the Jewish authorities (18:29–32). Pilate’s question about the charges against Jesus (v. 29) is presumably one to which he already knows the answer. Roman soldiers would hardly have participated in Jesus’ arrest (cf. v. 3) without his knowledge and permission. But the question had to be asked as a matter of procedure. The answer of the Jewish authorities (v. 30) probably reflects their impatience at this formality, as if to say, “You know very well what the charges are. Let’s get on with it.” Pilate’s initial cooperation in the arrest probably stemmed from what he saw as an opportunity to bring a potential troublemaker under questioning and learn whether he was dangerous to the political order or not. If the Jewish authorities could be assisted in curbing subversives among their own people, so much the better. Pilate’s preference is that now that Jesus is in custody, the Jews themselves should take him yourselves and judge him by your own law (v. 31).

His assumption is that they have not already done so. Although the synoptic Gospels speak of Jesus being condemned by the assembled priests and elders in the high priest’s house and by the Sanhedrin, there is reason to doubt that he had been formally tried and found guilty by the Jews. If he had been found guilty of such a charge as blasphemy or deception of the people, he would have been put to death by stoning like his brother James the Righteous, the leader of the Jerusalem church, in A. D. 62 (Josephus, Antiquities 20.200; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4–18) or like Stephen in the book of Acts (7:54–60). The reply of the Jewish authorities to Pilate, We have no right to execute anyone (lit., “We are not allowed to kill anyone”; Gr.: apokteinein), is most naturally understood as referring to the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (“You shall not murder”). The issue was not whether the Jews had the right of capital punishment under Roman law but rather what their own law did not permit them to do. If they executed someone not formally convicted of a crime, they would be guilty of murder according to the law of Moses. If some of the religious authorities judged that a person deserved to die (cf. 19:7) but were either unable to make their charges stick or unwilling to press their case for fear of a popular uprising (cf. Mark 14:2/Matt. 26:5/Luke 22:2), their only recourse was to manipulate the Romans into carrying out the judgment on their behalf. Jesus had said all along that the Jewish authorities were trying to “kill” him (Gr.: apokteinein, 7:19; 8:37, 40). The narrator (5:18; 7:1) and even the crowds in Jerusalem (7:25) had confirmed that this was the case. The result of the only meeting of the Sanhedrin mentioned anywhere in the Gospel was not a formal conviction but simply a plan by the Jewish authorities “to take his life” (11:53). When these same authorities now told Pilate, “We are not allowed to kill anyone,” they were condemning their own actions and exposing their own hypocrisy. The narrator’s viewpoint is that they would indeed “kill” Jesus as surely as if they were to drive the nails and thrust the spear with their own hands. Yet their hesitancy to act on their own authority without a formal conviction meant that Jesus would die by a Roman rather than a Jewish method of execution. Instead of being crushed by stoning, he would be “lifted up” in gruesome death by crucifixion, and in this prospect the narrator sees the fulfillment of Jesus’ own words (cf. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32–33). Nothing that happens will take Jesus by surprise; all the devious plans of the religious authorities and all the vacillations of Pilate stand under a divine necessity. The Son of Man “must” be lifted up in a redemptive, and therefore triumphant, death (cf. 3:14–16).

Pilate and Jesus (18:33–38a). Back inside the palace, Pilate questions Jesus for the first time. The theme of their conversation is kingship, a theme that will dominate the narrative from this point until Pilate places the inscription “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews” on Jesus’ cross and insists that it stand as written (19:19–22). The title king of the Jews occurs first in Pilate’s opening question to Jesus (v. 33). The question Are you the king of the Jews? is found in all four Gospels, and in each of the Synoptics Jesus’ answer is noncommittal (lit., “so you say,” Mark 15:2/Matt. 27:11/Luke 23:3), the equivalent of no answer at all. In this Gospel, however, the question is asked twice (vv. 33, 37a); in each case Jesus’ answer builds on the enigmatic “so you say,” but moves beyond it to deeper issues (vv. 34, 37b):

Is that your own idea [lit., “Do you say so on your own”] or did others talk to you about me? (v. 34).

You say that I am a king. I was born and came into the world for this one purpose, to speak about the truth (v. 37b, GNB).

The first reply (v. 34) addresses Pilate at a very personal level, as if to ask him, “Do you really want to know the answer for your own sake, or are you simply carrying out your duty as magistrate?” Pilate deflects the personal thrust by freely admitting that it is not his own question. He is not a Jew and has no interest in Jewish disputes about kingship. He only wants to get at the facts in Jesus’ case. As if to elicit from Jesus himself the charges that the Jewish authorities are bringing against him, Pilate asks, What is it you have done? (v. 35), but Jesus will not be drawn into specifics. Instead, returning to Pilate’s first question, he redefines kingship. He has a kingdom but it is not of this world (v. 36). Like Jesus himself, it is “from above” (cf. 8:23). To see it or enter it, a person must be “born again” or “born from above” (3:3). Jesus is not speaking of the kingdom’s location, but of its source—and therefore of its nature. Its source is God, even as Jesus comes from God. As God sends Jesus, so God and God alone brings the kingdom to realization. It is not established by armed violence; Jesus is not the sort of king who needs, or permits, the protection of the sword (cf. vv. 10–11).

Jesus’ redefinition has stretched the meaning of kingship almost to the breaking point. Pilate, somewhat confused, can only repeat his initial question: You are a king, then? (v. 37a; cf. v. 33). This time Jesus’ reply (v. 37b) builds even more explicitly on the traditional “so you say,” and in so doing seems to move beyond the theme of kingship to the more characteristically Johannine theme of revelation. For this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, he says, to testify to the truth, adding, significantly, for Pilate’s benefit, everyone on the side of truth listens to me (v. 37b; cf. 8:47). Even here, Jesus is not repudiating kingship but continuing the redefinition of it that he began in verse 36. Ultimately he is King, but for the present his role is to testify to the truth. He is the Revealer of God (cf. 1:1, 18). His purpose is not to call attention to himself but to the truth that God sent him to make known. Once, when his revelation led to the conclusion that he was “the Prophet who is to come into the world,” Jesus had fled from the consequent attempt “to make him king by force” (6:14–15). And though his followers acknowledged him on occasion as “King of Israel” (1:49; 12:13), his full revelation as Revealer and King has awaited the “hour” of his death and resurrection (cf. 12:16, 23).

Jesus’ second reply to Pilate, even more than the first, confronts the governor personally with the force of his claims. The statement Everyone on the side of truth listens to me (v. 37b) implies the question “Are you on the side of truth, Pilate? Are you listening to me?” In discourse after discourse, Jesus has confronted the world of Judaism, and now, in one brief but significant exchange, he confronts the whole Gentile world in the person of a single Roman magistrate. Pilate’s parting shot, What is truth? (v. 38), leaves the issue unresolved. The intent of Jesus’ last prayer “to let the world know that you have sent me” (17:23; cf. 17:21) is not yet realized, but in his brief conversation with Pilate, the mission to the Gentiles has begun (cf. Paul’s allusion to this scene in 1 Tim. 6:13).

Pilate and the Jewish Authorities (18:38b–40). On the basis of his interview with Jesus, Pilate makes the first of three declarations of Jesus’ innocence under Roman law (v. 38b, cf. 19:4, 6; also Luke 23:4, 14, 22). He proposes that Jesus be released, in accordance with a Passover custom, but by repeating the provocative term king of the Jews (v. 39), he reminds the Jewish leaders of what, in their eyes, was Jesus’ crime and so fuels their wrath once again. The point is probably not that Pilate was being hypocritical, but that he could not resist an opportunity to make fun of the Jews for worrying about such a pitiful king. In any event, they rejected his proposal and demanded instead the release of a certain Barabbas, identified only as one who had taken part in a rebellion. The narrator allows the irony of the rejection of the Son of God in favor of this notorious criminal to speak for itself (for a more explicit reflection on this irony, cf. Acts 3:14).

Pilate, Jesus, and the Jews (19:1–8). The note of ridicule in Pilate’s use of the phrase king of the Jews in 18:39 comes vividly to the fore in this section. Pilate decides to dramatize to everyone present what a pitiful and harmless figure Jesus is and what a pitiful race of people the Jews are for taking him seriously, whether as a king or as a dangerous pretender and blasphemer. All that happens—presumably inside the palace—in verses 1–3 is preliminary to the presentation of Jesus to the chief priests and their officials outside the palace in verses 4–8, and all of it—the beating and slapping, the thorny crown, the purple robe, and especially the mocking shout Hail, king of the Jews!—is the product of Pilate’s sick and anti-Semitic sense of humor. He seems obsessed throughout with the grim joke that Jesus is the Jews’ king. The words with which he presents Jesus to the assembled Jewish leaders—Here is the man! (v. 5)—are intended to arouse not so much pity as a sense of the ridiculous. To the Gospel writer, however, they are profoundly significant as a reminder of who it is who is going to be presented as king (v. 14) and then crucified (v. 18). It was as “Son of Man” that Jesus was to be both “glorified” (12:23; 13:31) and “lifted up” (3:14; 8:28; 12:34), and man is the closest a Roman Gentile could be expected to come to the idiomatic Jewish expression “Son of Man.” Like the high priest Caiaphas (11:51–52), Pilate is understood here as speaking more wisely than he knows. His elaborate joke serves the narrator and his readers as nothing less than the last decisive announcement of Jesus’ paradoxical “glorification” in the face of death and shame.

Pilate’s words, and the sight of Jesus robed in purple and crowned with thorns, agitates the assembled priests and guards all the more as they shout: Crucify! Crucify! (v. 6a). Up to a point this exchange between Pilate and the religious authorities virtually re-enacts their first encounter in 18:29–32. Pilate’s reply, You take him and crucify him (v. 6b) reiterates his earlier advice to take him yourselves and judge him by your own law (18:31). It also makes clear that, as far as Pilate was concerned, they had the power to carry out the death penalty if they so decided. Though they were unwilling or unable to do so, probably out of a lack of broad-based support, they remained firmly convinced that We have a law, and according to that law he must die [i.e., the law of blasphemy, Lev. 24:16] because he claimed to be the Son of God (v. 7).

The mention of the title Son of God for the first time in the Passion narrative recalls earlier disputes between Jesus and the Jewish authorities (e.g., 5:18; 10:33, 36). It was the understanding that Jesus was claiming to be “God,” or “equal with God,” that led all along to charges of blasphemy (10:33), attempts to stone him (8:59; 10:31), and the fixed determination that sooner or later he must die (5:18). To Pilate, however, divine sonship was a new factor in the discussion, and it awakened in him a new emotion (as far as the present narrative is concerned)—fear. Unlike the Jews, he heard the title Son of God in a polytheistic rather than monotheistic framework, and if he was dealing not with a pitiful and amusing mock king of the Jews but with some kind of favored messenger from the gods, the joke was no longer so funny as he had thought!

Pilate and Jesus (19:9–11). Pilate’s superstitious fear comes to expression at once with the question, Where do you come from? (v. 9). Jesus has already answered the question implicitly. If his kingdom comes not from this world, but from above, so too does he (cf. 3:31; 8:23). He chooses not to make the answer explicit, and in fact gives Pilate no answer at all. Yet when Pilate makes the claim that Jesus’ fate is in his hands (v. 10), Jesus responds significantly that not only his origin but his destiny is from above, in the sense that it rests with God and with him alone. Pilate’s claim of authority over Jesus, when translated literally, sounds like a feeble echo of Jesus’ own claim in 10:18. The similarities can be shown as follows:

10:18

19:10 (lit.)

No one takes it from me, but I lay it of my own accord. I have authority [Gr.: exousian echō] to lay it and authority [exousian echō] take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

Do you not know that I have the right [Gr.: exousian echō] to release you and I have the right [exousian echō] to crucify you?

When Jesus says in answer to Pilate, You would have no power [exousia] over me if it were not given to you from above (v. 11), he is reasserting his own claim from 10:18. In relation to all human beings and institutions, Jesus’ fate is in his own hands. But in relation to the Father (10:18b) he has received a command that he must obey. Pilate’s authority over him is therefore a derived authority; it is from above. Pilate is but an unknowing instrument in the hands of God, while Jesus is the Father’s loving Son and obedient servant. Jesus is not speaking in abstract or universal terms about a divinely given authority that the state has over matters of justice and human life, but of his own mission in particular and of the specific plan by which the Father has chosen to “glorify” his only Son.

It is clear that Jesus does not view Caiaphas (the one who handed me over to you) or the Jewish authorities in quite the same way he views Pilate. Jesus does not hesitate to judge both Caiaphas and Pilate guilty of sin (cf. 9:41; 15:22), but he pronounces Caiaphas, and those he represents, guilty of a greater sin (v. 11b). The reason is not that they stand outside God’s sovereignty but that (as they are seen in this Gospel) they are arrayed on the other side altogether, with their “father, the devil” (8:44), the “prince of this world” (12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Like him, and like his child Judas, they have “no hold on” Jesus (14:30) and have nothing to do with God’s redemptive plan. Their actions, no less than Pilate’s, help bring that plan to realization, yet their role is somehow different. Pilate “is from the earth [Gr.: gē; 3:31] and speaks about earthly matters”; like John the Baptist he can “receive only what is given him from heaven” (3:27). But Caiaphas and his allies “are of this world” [Gr.: kosmos; 8:23] and of this world’s ruler; like him, they are liars and murderers because they have rejected Jesus’ teaching and relentlessly sought his life (cf. 8:37–38, 44–45). Pilate is but a pawn, while they are the Enemy. Though they are Jewish, it is not their Jewishness that distinguishes them or makes their sin greater. It is, rather, their consistent identification with the “world” in all its unbelief and darkness and their consequent murderous intent toward Jesus the true light (cf. 1:5–9; 3:19–21).

Pilate, Jesus, and the Jews (19:12–16a). It is difficult to know what Pilate made of Jesus’ remarks. The narrator appears to be condensing a longer account so as to bring the story more quickly to its conclusion. The phrase tried to set Jesus free in verse 12 (Gr.: ezētei, imperfect tense) suggests that Pilate may have made several attempts, not specified in the text, to have Jesus released. Already afraid that Jesus might have power with the gods, Pilate had now been reminded of his own accountability to higher powers (v. 11). But when he tried to use the authority he claimed he had to free Jesus, he found his efforts blocked by the political realities of his own situation. The upshot of all his efforts was that at some point the religious authorities played their trump card: If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar (v. 12). The bottom line was that if the emperor were to learn that Pilate was protecting a claimant to kingship, Pilate’s status as friend of Caesar (a title of privilege bestowed by the emperor as a reward for faithful service) would be in jeopardy—so would his official position, and perhaps his very life.

The blunt personal threat had an immediate and remarkable effect on Pilate. He brought Jesus outside the palace for one last time, presenting him to the assembled Jewish leaders with the words Here is your king (v. 14). The parallel between this expression and Here is the man! in verse 5 could suggest that he is merely resuming the mockery of verses 1–5 and bringing to an end his grotesque mock coronation. But something has changed. There is a seriousness in Pilate’s behavior and a bitter solemnity here that was not present before. Realizing that the Jewish authorities have forced him to accede to their demands, Pilate takes his revenge. By sitting in the judge’s seat, he gives to the announcement Here is your king a ceremonial and quasi-official character. The ultimate insult he can hurl at the Jews is that this truly is their king, the one they deserve and the only one they will ever have. His insult finds its mark, for it draws from them in angry response the ultimate blasphemy of the God of Israel: We have no king but Caesar (v. 15). In denying Jesus, they deny in the end their own Jewishness, and in a strange turn of phrase, Pilate is said to have handed him over to them [the Jews] to be crucified—a Roman method of execution!

The narrator is careful to fix precisely the time and the place of all this. It is the day of Preparation of Passover Week; the hour is about noon (about the sixth hour); the place is called the Stone Pavement, also designated by the Semitic name Gabbatha (vv. 13–14). Why is the incident so momentous as to warrant such fullness of detail? The most plausible answer is that it is Jesus’ long-awaited “glorification.” If the cross is the ironic moment of Jesus’ “lifting up,” is not his formal presentation as king outside the governor’s palace the ironic moment of his glory? Is it only coincidence that the place of crucifixion and the place of the presentation are each carefully designated with both Greek and Semitic names (vv. 13, 17)? It appears that the two events are intended to form a pair, with the precise time reference of verse 14 placed between them to do service for both. They are joined not simply for the sake of chronological accuracy but to allow Jesus’ kingship and his crucifixion to illumine and interpret each other (Shall I crucify your king? Pilate asked in v. 15). Jesus in this Gospel reigns as king—of the Jews and of all people—not from a throne, but from a cross; and his death is not the tragic and shameful defeat it appears to be but the decisive revelation of his kingship, and of the glory of God.

Additional Notes

18:28 The Jews led Jesus … The Jews did not enter the palace: lit., “they took Jesus.… and they [emphatic] did not go inside.” The first “they” is purposely undefined or impersonal (“Jesus was taken,” GNB). The larger context suggests that Jesus was brought to Pilate by the “detachment of soldiers … and the Jewish officials” who had arrested him in the first place (v. 12), but the indefinite expression allows the narrator to focus instead on those who had sent the temple guards in the first place, i.e., “the chief priests and Pharisees” (v. 3). Designated here only by the emphatic pronoun (Gr.: kai autoi), and referred to in the ensuing narrative as “the Jews,” they are Pilate’s antagonists throughout (cf. the expression “the chief priests and their officials” in 19:6).

The palace of the Roman governor (Gr.: to praitōrion, a transliteration of the Latin praetorium): The term referred to any official residence of the Roman military governor in occupied territory. In Palestine, it was natural to seize and make use of Herodian buildings for this purpose (e.g., “Herod’s palace” in Caesarea in Acts 23:35). In Jerusalem, Pilate’s official residence was either in the Antonia, a Hasmonean fortress on a height just north of the temple area that Herod the Great converted into a palace, or in the more elaborate palace that Herod later built for himself on the western height of the city, near the present Jaffa Gate. The former became the dominant identification in Christian tradition after the Crusades (the Antonia is the starting point of the traditional Via Dolorosa), but the latter is more probable on literary and archaeological grounds. See R. M. Mackowski, Jerusalem, City of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 91–111; also J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem as Jesus Knew It (London: Thames & Hudson, 1978), pp. 137–44.

To avoid ceremonial uncleanness … to be able to eat the Passover: The statement indicates that the Passover meal has not yet been eaten (cf. 19:14, “the day of Preparation of Passover Week”) and that therefore Jesus’ last meal with his disciples in chapter 13 is not to be understood as the Passover. It also underscores a terrible irony: These men who were so scrupulous about the slightest contact with a Gentile or the residence of a Gentile nevertheless had no hesitation about maneuvering that Gentile into doing what their own law forbade them to do—killing an innocent man (v. 31)!

18:36 My servants: The word is not “disciples” or the usual word for “servants” but the same word that in vv. 3, 12, 18, and 22 is translated “officials.” The word is chosen on the (contrary-to-fact) assumption that his kingdom belongs “to this world.” If it did, his disciples would be “officials” like those who arrested him and would meet force with force (as Peter tried to do). But because it is not, he has no “officials.” His disciples have an entirely different role, determined by his own single purpose “to testify to the truth” (v. 37).

18:39 It is your custom: This policy of amnesty is mentioned also in Mark 15:6 and Matt. 27:15 (by the respective Gospel writers rather than by Pilate), but it is not mentioned outside the New Testament. The reason for the silence of the Jewish sources may be that the custom prevailed for a relatively short period of time—only during Pilate’s term of office, perhaps, or (at the most) over those decades in which insurrections were more frequent and there were more political prisoners than before. It was probably not a Jewish custom as such, but a Roman concession to raise public morale.

18:40 Had taken part in a rebellion: lit., “was a bandit.” The term can denote anyone who commits armed robbery, but it was frequently used by Josephus to refer to a particular kind of terrorist who combined plunder with riot and insurrection (cf. Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19).

19:8 Even more afraid: Pilate’s fear has not previously been mentioned. Probably no comparison is intended with a previous state of mind; the comparative is used simply to express the idea that Pilate was very frightened by the phrase “Son of God.”

19:11 The one who handed me over: The verb “hand over” (Gr.: paradidonai) is the same word translated “betray” when it is used of Judas (cf. 6:64, 71; 12:4; 13:2, 21; 18:2, 5). But Judas did not hand Jesus over to Pilate. The reference is rather to the Jewish authorities (cf. 18:30, 35) and probably (because it is singular) specifically to Caiaphas.

19:12 Friend of Caesar: The phrase in Latin amicus Caesaris (“Caesar’s friend”) was a technical term for a privileged status awarded by the emperor. There is evidence that Pilate may have enjoyed this status by virtue of his association with the strongly anti-Semitic Aelius Sejanus (Tacitus wrote in Annals 6.8 that “whoever was close to Sejanus had a claim on the friendship of Caesar”). But Sejanus lost his own status in the year 31, and for this reason Pilate may have been especially vulnerable—especially to threats from the Jews.

19:13 Sat down on the judge’s seat: It is debated whether the verb is intransitive or transitive, i.e., whether Pilate himself sat down or whether he seated Jesus on the judge’s seat (as part of an elaborate mocking ceremony). The latter interpretation is reflected in second-century traditions in which Jesus is mockingly commanded, “Judge us” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 35), or, “Judge justly, O king of Israel” (Gospel of Peter 7). But the judge’s seat (Gr.: bēma) is not, strictly speaking, a throne, and the verb “to sit” (Gr.: kathizein) is normally intransitive when used of someone functioning as a judge. Josephus, in fact, uses this very expression of Pilate himself in Jewish War 2.172. The seriousness with which Pilate proceeds at this point suggests that he is not now mocking Jesus but pronouncing his own verdict on the Jewish priests and people.

The Stone Pavement (Gr.: lithostrōtos): This place is frequently identified with an ancient pavement of massive stone slabs (over two thousand square yards) at the site of the Fortress Antonia, under the present-day Sisters of Zion hospice and the Church of the Flagellation, excavated in 1870. Although this is possible, it is likely that any large square in Jerusalem (whether from this period or after its Roman rebuilding in the second century) would have the same general appearance that this site has. The discovery therefore cannot be used with confidence to settle the location of the praetorium (see note on “the palace of the Roman governor” in 18:28). The lithostrōtos is mentioned as if it were something more specific than a vast paved square—perhaps a small raised platform (see note on Gabbatha) on which the judge’s seat was placed. As in the case of Bethesda, the narrator writes as if the place could still be identified in his time, but (unlike Bethesda) the Stone Pavement cannot be identified with certainty today.

Gabbatha is not the Hebrew translation of Stone Pavement. It is in fact an Aramaic word, probably meaning a height or a ridge, but whether it was a natural elevated place or something man-made (e.g., an elevated stone platform) is unclear.

19:14 About the sixth hour. According to the Jewish reckoning of hours from 6:00 a.m. this would be about noon (see note on 1:39). In the interest of harmonizing with the synoptic Gospels (e.g., Mark 15:25: “It was the third hour when they crucified him”), some have argued that John’s Gospel was following the Roman time reckoning from midnight, so that “the sixth hour” was 6:00 a.m. This crowds a great deal of action between “early morning” (18:28) and 6:00 a.m. while leaving the three hours between 6:00 and 9:00 a.m. unaccounted for. It also raises the question of why John would fix the time of Jesus’ presentation as king so carefully and the time of his crucifixion not at all. Whatever the resolution of the chronologies, a solemn reference to noon in this verse does correspond symbolically to the synoptic notice that “at the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land” (Mark 15:33 and parallels).

The day of Preparation of Passover Week: lit., “the Preparation of the Passover.” The term Preparation (Gr.: paraskeuē) by itself commonly referred to Friday, the day of preparation for the Sabbath (cf. vv. 31, 42), but in conjunction with Passover it refers to the day when the Passover lamb was slaughtered and preparations were made for the Passover meal. The chronology presupposed in this Gospel is that in the year Jesus died the Passover was also a Sabbath.

19:16a Pilate handed him over to them. There is a somber mutuality in the execution of Jesus: First the Jewish authorities “handed over” Jesus to Pilate (18:30, 35), and now he handed Jesus over to them. For the strange implication that in a sense the Jewish authorities themselves crucified Jesus see note on 8:28.

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

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Barabbas

A prisoner mentioned in all four Gospels. Barabbas is a prisoner of particular note according to Matthew (27:16), an insurrectionist and murderer according to Mark (15:7) and Luke (23:19), and a rebel according to John (18:40). Barabbas was being held in prison when the Jewish chief priests and elders brought Jesus before Pilate following Judas’s betrayal in the garden of Gethsemane. After witnessing Jesus’ silence before those who were accusing him, Pilate asked the crowd whether they would rather he release to them Barabbas or Jesus. The practice of releasing a prisoner is described as either Pilate’s custom (Mark 15:8) or a Jewish Passover custom (John 18:39). Persuaded by the chief priests and elders, the crowd demanded the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus.

Caiaphas

High priest from AD 18 to 36/37. He is best known for presiding over the Jewish trial of Jesus. The Bible mentions him explicitly in Matt. 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13, 24, 28; Acts 4:6. Gratus, a Roman prefect of Judea, appointed Caiaphas to the office, and Vitellius, a Roman legate of Syria, removed him from it. According to John 11:49 52, he prophesied about Jesus’ death. He appears several times in the writings of Josephus, though conspicuously rarely considering the length of his tenure.

Fulfill

The various Hebrew and Greek words that express the idea of fulfillment occur hundreds of times in the Bible, and the concept often is present even when the specific word is not. At the basic level, fulfillment indicates a relationship between two (or more) things in which the second is said to “fill up” the significance of the first. Frequently this takes the form of a specific promise that is said to be fulfilled when the person, object, or event referred to comes to pass. There are countless examples of this type of fulfillment, some of which even quote the specific promise that is being fulfilled. The seventy years of Babylonian captivity prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10) are said to be fulfilled when Cyrus permits the Jews to return to the land (Ezra 1:1 4). Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1–6) fulfills the promise of a ruler who will shepherd Israel (Mic. 5:2).

But the concept of fulfillment goes beyond specific promises that are then said to be fulfilled in a particular person, object, or event. In the broadest sense of the term, one can say that the NT fulfills what the OT promises. After his resurrection, Jesus reminds his disciples, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). He then provides a summary of the entire OT message: “The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46–47).

Governor

There are several notable governors in the OT. After being sold into slavery in Egypt, Joseph was exalted to governor of Egypt, second only to the king. Thus, his brothers bowed before him (Gen. 42:6). Solomon, during his reign, established twelve governors, each one responsible for supplying provisions to the king one month out of the year (1 Kings 4:7), and Solomon received tribute from them (1 Kings 10:15; 2 Chron. 9:14).

One notable governor was Gedaliah, ruler of the Jewish remnant left in Judah during the deportation, who reported to the king of Babylon (Jer. 40:11). Later, he was assassinated by Ishmael (41:2). This provoked great fear, causing some to flee to Egypt (41:17 18).

Another notable individual who governed the Jewish people upon their return to Jerusalem after the captivity was Sheshbazzar, governor under Cyrus (Ezra 5:14). He had been entrusted with the vessels for the house of God in Jerusalem that had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar (1:7–8). This same Sheshbaz-zar had begun building the foundation of the temple by the legal decree of Cyrus the king (5:14–6:6). Subsequently, Zerubbabel (under Darius I) became governor and completed the foundation and the rest of the temple (Ezra 3–6; see also Hag. 1:1–15). He and the other workers are said to have had their spirits stirred to do the work (Hag. 1:14).

Nehemiah, who led the people in restoring the wall of Jerusalem for the safety and restoration of the city, was governor over his people (under Artaxerxes I) and had a true heart of compassion toward the poor. His sympathy for them was so deep that he did not take the regular allotment of food and other goods that the other governors took by right (Neh. 5:14–15). The governors who had gone before ruled and taxed heavily. Nehemiah deemed this an illegitimate way to live among God’s people. At the reading of the law along with Ezra the priest and the other Levites, Nehemiah directed the attention of the people to the proper response to the word of God (8:9–10).

In the NT, the most common word for governor is hēgemōn. As in the OT, governors were appointed by higher authorities who delegated to them the authority to rule.

The office of governor was very important in Israel during the NT period. Herod the Great had ruled Israel during the years 37–4 BC. At his death in 4 BC, three of his sons took over the kingdom with the approval of Caesar Augustus. Archelaus ruled Judea and Samaria, Herod Antipas (Herod the Tetrarch) was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip was tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitus (see Luke 3:1; Josephus, J.W. 2.93–97). The Jewish people revolted against Archelaus in the ninth year, and he was stripped of his rulership and banished in AD 6 (Josephus, J.W. 2.111). His kingdom was turned into a Roman province, with Coponius ruling as governor. From this time until the reign of Herod Agrippa I, Judea was ruled by a line of governors (called “prefects” or “procurators”). In AD 41 Herod Agrippa I began to rule and eventually governed roughly the same territory as did Herod the Great, his grandfather. His rule, however, lasted only three years. In the period AD 44–66 governors again ruled in Judea, among them Felix and Festus, with whom the apostle Paul had audience.

Of note among these governors was Pontius Pilate, appointed in AD 26 by Tiberius. Pilate’s fortunes seemed to wax and wane with those of General Sejanus, with whom he shared many political and social views. When he first arrived in Palestine, Pilate provoked protests by secretly bringing army standards bearing the images of Roman emperors—idols in Jewish eyes—into Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.55–59). On another occasion demonstrations broke out when Pilate used money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem (18.60–62). Pilate sent soldiers to surround and attack the protestors, many of whom were killed. Luke 13:1 refers to a similar episode near the Temple Mount in which Pilate massacred some Galileans, “whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” Typical of the Romans, Pilate met protest with ruthless and overwhelming force. At Jesus’ trial, though Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent (John 18:38), he condemned Jesus to crucifixion to avoid antagonizing the religious leaders. This kind of action was characteristic of Pilate. He was an unscrupulous and self-seeking leader who loathed the Jewish leadership but feared antagonizing them. Josephus notes that during the tumult of the Samaritans (to assemble at Mount Gerizim), Pilate put them to flight, killing some of them. The Samaritans complained about Pilate’s murderous ways to Vitellius, who was friendly to them, and he recalled Pilate to Rome to answer before Tiberius, but Pilate took so long getting there that Tiberius was dead when he finally arrived (Josephus, Ant. 18.85–89). Pilate was eventually removed from office, and we hear nothing else from him.

Two other Judean governors who appear in the NT are Felix and Festus, who played a role in the apostle Paul’s trial (Acts 24–26). Felix’s wife, Drusilla, was a Jewess, and she was with him at Paul’s second hearing. On this second occasion Paul reasoned powerfully with Felix, so much so that Felix became frightened about the future and sent Paul away. His fear notwithstanding, Felix sought to exploit the situation for monetary gain (no doubt bribes were common), but Paul made no response. Two years later Felix was replaced by the next governor, Porcius Festus. Festus heard the defense of Paul (Acts 26) and sent him to Rome after his appeal, though both Festus and Herod agreed that Paul could have been set free had he not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:30–32).

Judgment

Of several Hebrew words for “judgment,” two are important here.

The word shepet is used of God, who brings the judgments upon the Egyptians in the plagues (Exod. 6:6; 7:4; 12:12). Ezekiel prophesies God’s judgment on Israel and other nations (e.g., Ezek. 5:10; 16:41; 25:11). The word is also applied to human beings, as the Syrians execute judgment on Israel (2 Chron. 24:24).

The most frequent noun is mishpat. Abraham is noted for mishpat, “judgment/justice” (Gen. 18:19). God by attribute is just (Gen. 18:25); he shows justice toward the orphan and the widow (Deut. 10:18) and brings judgment on behalf of the oppressed (Ps. 25:9). At the waters of Marah, God makes a judgment, an ordinance for the people (Exod. 15:25). Similarly, the mishpatim, “judgments/ordinances,” become law for life in Israel (Exod. 21:1). In making judicial judgments, the Israelites are to be impartial (Lev. 19:15), and they are to use good judgment and justice in trade (Lev. 19:35; Prov. 16:11). Israel will be judged for rejecting God’s judgments (Ezek. 5:7 8) and worshiping false gods (Jer. 1:16). Those accused of crime will come to judgment/trial (Num. 35:12). The children of Israel come to their judges for judgment (Judg. 4:5). God will bring each person to a time of judgment regarding how his or her life is spent (Eccles. 11:9).

One key word in the NT is krisis. It has a range of meaning similar to mishpat. In the NT, judgment is rendered for thoughts and words as well as deeds (Matt. 5:21–22; 12:36). Future, eschatological judgment is a key theme for Jesus (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:42), Paul (2 Thess. 1:5), and other NT writers (Heb. 9:27; 10:27; 2 Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1 John 4:17; Jude 15; Rev. 14:7). Jesus himself will be the judge (John 5:22). The only way to avoid condemnation is by having eternal life in the Messiah (John 5:24).

Another key word in the NT is krima. It may refer to condemnation (Matt. 7:2; Rom. 3:8) or to judgment, again including the eschatological judgment (Acts 24:25). Krima is the word most frequently used by Paul. He also often presents judgment as already realized (e.g., Rom. 2:2–3; 5:16). In the later epistles judgment may be realized as well (2 Pet. 2:3; Jude 4). James points out that not many should presume to be teachers, because they will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).

King

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

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

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

Law

In general, Torah (Law) may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19 23) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.

More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.

Passover

The Israelites gathered regularly to celebrate their relationship with God. Such festivals were marked by communal meals, music, singing, dancing, and sacrifices. They celebrated, conscious that God had graciously brought them into a relationship with him. Within this covenant he had committed himself to act on their behalf both in regular ways, such as the harvest, and in exceptional ways, such as deliverance from Egypt. At the festivals, Israel celebrated God’s work in its past, present, and future and reaffirmed its relationship with this covenant God.

We know of Israel’s festivals from several calendars in the Mosaic legislation (Exod. 23:14 17; 34:18–23; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; Deut. 16:1–17), calendars further clarified by the prophets (e.g., Ezek. 45:18–25; Zech. 14), and narrative material (e.g., 2 Kings 23:21–23).

Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Israel’s religious calendar began with Passover, the day set aside to commemorate deliverance from Egypt. Occurring in spring, this single day was joined with a weeklong celebration known as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, during which all males were required to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary and offer the firstfruits of the barley harvest (Lev. 23:9–14). Israel observed Passover with rituals that reactualized the night God’s destroyer spared the Israelites in Egypt. A lamb was killed, and its blood was put on the doorposts of the homes and on the bronze altar in the sanctuary. The lamb was roasted and served with unleavened bread and bitter herbs while those partaking—dressed in their traveling clothes—listened to the retelling of the exodus story. No yeast was to be found anywhere among them, no work was to be done on the first and last days of the festival, and offerings were to be brought to the sanctuary (Num. 9:1–5; Josh. 5:10–11; 2 Kings 23:21–23; 2 Chron. 30; 35:1–19).

Early Christians associated Jesus’ death with that of the Passover (Paschal) lamb (1 Cor. 5:7–8), encouraged by Jesus’ comments at the Last Supper (described by the Synoptic Gospels as a Passover meal [e.g., Matt. 26:17–30]). Perhaps Jesus meant to emphasize that just as Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread reminded God’s people of his deliverance and provision, his followers would find true freedom and full provision in him.

The Festival of Weeks. Also known as the Festival of Harvest, the Day of Firstfruits, or Pentecost (because it occurred fifty days after Passover), the Festival of Weeks took place on the sixth day of the third month (corresponding to our May or June). This marked another occasion when all Jewish men were required to come to the sanctuary. They were to bring an offering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, abstain from work, and devote themselves to rejoicing in God’s goodness.

Early in the NT period, if not before, this festival also became associated with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The Jews who assembled in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2 came to celebrate not only God’s provision but also the revelation of his nature and will. Significantly, God chose this day to send the Holy Spirit, the One who would produce a harvest of believers and reveal God more fully to the world.

The Festival of Tabernacles. So important was the Festival of Tabernacles (also known as the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Booths) that Israel sometimes referred to it as “the festival of the Lord” (Judg. 21:19) or simply “the festival” (cf. 1 Kings 8:65). Held from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month (September–October), this was the third of the three pilgrimage festivals. For that week, Israel lived in booths to remind them of their ancestors’ time in the wilderness. They also celebrated the fruit harvest. They were to “take the fruit of majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice” before God for seven days (Lev. 23:40 NRSV). Avoiding all work on the first and last days of the festival, they were to mark the week with sacrifices, celebration, and joy. Also, every seventh year the law was to be read at this festival (Deut. 31:10–11).

John 7 records Jesus’ secretive departure to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles, where he spent several days teaching in the temple courts. It was on the last and greatest day of the festival when Jesus invited those thirsty to come to him and drink.

The Festival of Trumpets. Occurring on the first day of the seventh month (September–October), this feast marked the beginning of the civil and agricultural year for the Jews; it was also referred to as Rosh Hashanah (lit., “head/beginning of the year”). Observed as a Sabbath with sacrifices and trumpet blasts, this day was intended for rest and to begin preparations for the coming Day of Atonement. The Mishnah makes this connection more explicit by identifying the Festival of Trumpets as the day when “all that come into the world pass before [God] like legions of soldiers” or flocks of sheep to be judged (m. Ros. HaSh. 1:2).

The Day of Atonement. Some festivals, like Passover, looked back to what God had done or was doing for his people; other festivals, like Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), focused on the relationship itself. The latter was marked by repentance and rituals designed to remove the nation’s sins and restore fellowship with God. Coming ten days after the Festival of Trumpets, this was a solemn occasion during which the Israelites abstained from eating, drinking, and other activities. This was the only prescribed annual fast in the Jewish calendar, though other fasts were added in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months to mourn the Babylonian exile (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19).

In Leviticus, God clarified the purpose of this day: “On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins” (16:30). Not only would the people be purified but so also would the sanctuary, so that God could continue to meet his people there. Sacrifices were offered for both priest and people, and the blood was taken into the most holy place. Only on Yom Kippur could this room be entered, and only by the high priest, who sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant. Leaving that room, he also sprinkled blood in the holy place (16:14–17) and then on the bronze altar in the courtyard.

Yom Kippur was marked by another ritual that symbolized the removal of Israel’s sins, this one involving two goats. One goat, chosen by lot, was offered as a sacrifice to God. The high priest placed his hands on the other goat and transferred to it the sins of the nation. He then released the goat into the wilderness, for “the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place” (Lev. 16:22).

The book of Hebrews uses the symbols of Yom Kippur to describe Jesus’ death. As the high priest entered the most holy place, so Jesus entered God’s presence, carrying not the blood of bull and goat but his own. His once-for-all death at the “culmination of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) not only allows him to remain in God’s presence (10:12) but also gives us access to God’s presence as well (10:19–22).

Sabbath Year. Every seven years, the Israelites were to observe a “Sabbath of the land” (Lev. 25:6 ESV), a time for the land to rest. They could not sow fields or prune vineyards, but they could eat what grew of itself (25:1–7). Deuteronomy 15:1–11 speaks of all debts being canceled (some would say deferred) every seventh year, presumably the same year the land was to lie fallow. When Israel was gathered at the Festival of Tabernacles during this Sabbath Year, the law of Moses was to be read aloud. The Chronicler described the seventy years of Babylonian exile as “sabbaths” for the land, perhaps alluding to the neglect of the Sabbath Year (2 Chron. 36:21; cf. Lev. 26:43). Those returning from exile expressed their intent to keep this provision (Neh. 10:31), and it appears to have been observed in the intertestamental period (see 1 Macc. 6:48–53; Josephus, Ant. 14.202–10).

This year seems intended to maintain the fertility of the land and to allow Israel’s economy to “reset,” equalizing wealth and limiting poverty. Observing such a provision took great faith and firm allegiance, for they had to trust God for daily bread and put obedience above profit. Rereading the law at the Festival of Tabernacles reminded the Israelites of God’s gracious covenant and their required response.

Jubilee. God instructed Israel to count off seven “sevens” of years and in the fiftieth year, beginning on the Day of Atonement, to sound a trumpet marking the Jubilee Year. As in the Sabbath Year, there was to be no sowing and reaping. Further, the land was released from its current owners and returned to those families to whom it originally belonged. Individual Israelites who had become indentured through economic distress were to be freed. The assumption underlying the Jubilee Year was that everything belonged to God. He owned the land and its occupants; the Israelites were only tenants and stewards (Lev. 25:23, 55). As their covenant Lord, he would provide for their needs even during back-to-back Sabbath Years (Lev. 25:21). The year began on the Day of Atonement, perhaps to emphasize that the best response to God’s redemptive mercy is faith in his provision and mercy to others. Although the Jubilee Year is commanded in the Mosaic law and spoken about by the prophets (Isa. 61:1–2; Ezek. 46:17), rabbis, and Jesus (Luke 4:18–19), Scripture is silent on how or if Israel observed this year.

New Moon. The beginning of each month was marked with the sounding of trumpets, rejoicing, and sacrifices (Num. 10:10; 28:11–15). There is some indication that work was to be suspended on this day, as on the Sabbath (Amos 8:5), and that people gathered for a meal (1 Sam. 20:5, 18, 24, 27). By faithfully observing this day, Israel was in a position to properly observe the remaining days, set up, as they were, on the lunar calendar. Paul learned of some in Colossae who were giving undue attention to New Moon celebrations (Col. 2:16).

Purim. Beyond the festivals commanded in the law of Moses, the Jews added two more to their sacred calendar, one during the postexilic period and one between the Testaments. Both commemorated God’s deliverance of his people from their enemies. A wave of anti-Semitic persecution swept over the Jews living in Persia during the reign of Xerxes (486–465 BC). God delivered his people through Esther, and the Jews celebrated this deliverance with the festival of Purim. Their enemies determined when to attack by casting lots, so the Jews called this festival “Purim,” meaning “lots.” It was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the twelfth month (February–March) with “feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (Esther 9:22).

Festival of Dedication. During the inter-testamental period, the Jews came under great persecution from the Seleucids, who outlawed the practice of Judaism and desecrated the Jerusalem temple. After recapturing the temple, the Jews began the process of purification. On the twenty-fifth day of their ninth month, in the year 164 BC, the Jews rose at dawn and offered a lawful sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offering which they had made. The altar was dedicated, to the sound of hymns, zithers, lyres and cymbals, at the same time of year and on the same day on which the gentiles had originally profaned it. The whole people fell prostrate in adoration and then praised Heaven who had granted them success. For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar, joyfully offering burnt offerings, communion and thanksgiving sacrifices. . . . Judas [Maccabees], with his brothers and the whole assembly of Israel, made it a law that the days of the dedication of the altar should be celebrated yearly at the proper season, for eight days beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Chislev [December], with rejoicing and gladness. (1 Macc. 4:52–56, 59 NJB)

This festival is also called “Hanukkah” (from the Hebrew word for “dedicate”) or the Festival of Lights, to recall the lighting of the lamps in the temple. The rabbis told how these lamps were lit from a small quantity of oil that miraculously lasted eight days until more could be consecrated. John 10:22–39 describes events from Jesus’ life that took place at the Festival of Dedication.

Pilate

Pontius Pilate was the fifth Roman governor of Judea. He presided at the trial of Jesus, ultimately sentencing him to death. Based on the account of Josephus, he was appointed to his post in AD 26 or 27 and was removed from it ten years later (c. AD 37) by the governor of the neighboring province of Syria after he mishandled a confrontation with a group of religious fanatics in Samaria.

Pilate is known not only from the NT, but also from Josephus, Philo, the Roman historian Tacitus, and from an inscription discovered in 1961 in Caesarea identifying Pilate as “prefect” of Judea. This technical term has connotations of military authority and is more specific than the NT’s broader term “governor” (Gk. hēgemōn).

Praetorium

Priests

A priest is a minister of sacred things who represents God to the people and the people to God. The OT identifies priests of Yahweh and priests of other gods and idols. The only pagan priest that the NT mentions is the priest of Zeus from Lystra who wanted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, whom the crowd mistook for deities (Acts 14:13). All other NT references build upon OT teaching about priests of Yahweh.

Early biblical history records clan heads offering sacrifices for their families (Gen. 12:7 8; 13:18; 22; 31:54; 46:1). Although the patriarchs performed these duties, they are never called “priests”; the only priests mentioned from this time are foreigners such as Melchizedek, the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (Gen. 14:18; 41:45, 50; 46:20; Exod. 3:1; 18:1). Whereas all Israelites could be called “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6), a distinctive priesthood came to light when God instructed Moses to prepare special priestly clothes for Aaron and his sons (Exod. 28). The high priest was distinguished from the others by more magnificent clothes. By failing to wear their special clothes while serving at the tabernacle, the priests would incur guilt and die (Exod. 28:43).

In NT times many priests exerted religious and civil power as leaders of the Sadducees and the Essenes. Some priests, such as Zechariah, were portrayed as righteous men (Luke 1:5–6). Others were said to have come to faith in Jesus (Acts 6:7). Supporting the role assigned by Moses, Jesus regularly required those whom he healed to show themselves to the priest. Even so, most Gospel references to priests underscore their opposition to Jesus’ ministry and the role they played in his trial and crucifixion. This opposition continued after the resurrection, as priests challenged the witness of the apostles. When Peter and John proclaimed that a crippled beggar had been healed by Jesus’ power, the priests and others jailed, interrogated, and forbade them from speaking in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:1–20). The Sanhedrin questioned Stephen about charges of blasphemy and speaking against the temple and the Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Saul (Paul) received a letter of authority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Later, as a follower of Jesus, he stood trial before Ananias, who charged him before Felix (24:1), and a wider group of chief priests who charged him before Festus (25:1–3).

Hebrews uniquely highlights how the priesthood of Jesus surpassed the OT priesthood. The OT priests presented sin offerings, but their sacrifices needed to be repeated regularly, whereas Jesus, the faithful and merciful high priest, offered a sacrifice that never needed repeating and was available to everyone at all times. Jesus also surpassed the Aaronic priests because they first needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins, but he never sinned. Furthermore, since he offered the perfect sacrifice of himself, all people, not just priests, could draw near to God.

The NT develops the idea of a priesthood of all believers by taking the concept that Israel would be a kingdom of priests and transferring it to the church (1 Pet. 2:4–9; cf. Exod. 19:6). Reflecting the general biblical view of priesthood, believers offer spiritual sacrifices to God, represent God to the world by revealing his works of salvation, and represent the world to God through prayer. In the NT, the priesthood of believers is corporate; a priestly office in the church is never expressly mentioned.

Prisoner

In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.

The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:19 20), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).

In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).

Ritual

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1 17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

Witness

The English term “witness” occurs in both Testaments numerous times, with a wide range of meanings. One common meaning relates to someone who gives legal testimony and to the legitimacy of that testimony (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15 16, 18; Prov. 12:17; Isa. 8:16, 20). Throughout the NT the term occurs primarily in the context of someone bearing witness—especially God—or testifying to something (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10), though it also has a forensic dimension in regard to one who establishes legal testimony (e.g., Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).

Central to the concept of witness is the truthfulness of the witness. This was a vital component of the OT concept of witness. Thus, in legal proceedings a lone witness was insufficient to establish testimony against anyone (Deut. 17:6). This principle carries over into the NT (cf. Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1). Such truthfulness was so significant that the ninth commandment expressly forbids bearing false witness (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Prov. 19:5, 9).

Truth-telling was not something that the people of Israel were called to merely among themselves. They were to be God’s witnesses to the nations (Isa. 43:10; 44:8). As witnesses of God’s existence and holiness, they were called to be separate from the nations (Exod. 19:6) and to be a light to them (Isa. 49:6). Tragically, Israel failed in this responsibility and was deemed “blind” (Isa. 42:19).

The NT continues the concept that the people of God are to be God’s witnesses. John the Baptist is commissioned “to testify concerning that light” (John 1:7). It is in this context that Jesus later declares himself to be “the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). Jesus himself is the exemplar of a “faithful witness” (Rev. 1:5). And his followers, whom he has designated as “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), are then called to bear witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

“Witness” is also employed in terms of a legal testimony regarding what one has seen. That the disciples were intent on establishing such legal testimony is evident in their stipulation that the person to replace Judas Iscariot be someone from among those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his ascension, so that “one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:22). This forensic aspect of witness appears in the close of the Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (21:24). Paul demonstrates this forensic concern for witnesses when he references Peter, the Twelve, some five hundred others, and himself as among those who have witnessed the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Throughout Revelation there resides a direct link between Christians bearing witness and suffering, and perhaps dying, as a consequence of this witness. This is evident in the mention of Antipas, who was martyred, and is then designated as “my faithful witness” (Rev. 2:13). Also, the two unnamed witnesses in 11:1–12, who explicitly function as witnesses, are the subject of attack and are eventually murdered. Their murder occurs only after they have finished “their testimony” (11:7).

It is this association of persecution and martyrdom that likely leads to the second-century employment of “martyr” as a designation for those who bear witness to Christ to the point of death.

Word

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

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

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

Direct Matches

Barabbas

A prisoner mentioned in all four Gospels. Barabbas is a prisoner of particular note according to Matthew (27:16), an insurrectionist and murderer according to Mark (15:7) and Luke (23:19), a rebel according to John (18:40). His mention in all four Gospel accounts is significant. Barabbas was being held in prison when the Jewish chief priests and elders brought Jesus before Pilate following Judas’s betrayal in the garden of Gethsemane. After witnessing Jesus’ silence before those who were accusing him, Pilate asked the crowd whether they would rather he release to them Barabbas or Jesus. The practice of releasing a prisoner is described as either Pilate’s custom (Mark 15:8) or a Jewish Passover custom (John 18:39). Persuaded by the chief priests and elders, the crowd demanded the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus.

Caiaphas

High priest from AD 18 to 36/37. He is best known for presiding over the Jewish trial of Jesus. The Bible mentions him explicitly in Matt. 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2; John 11:49; 18:13, 24, 28; Acts 4:6. Gratus, a Roman prefect of Judea, appointed Caiaphas to the office, and Vitellius, a Roman legate of Syria, removed him from it. According to John 11:49–52, he prophesied about Jesus’ death. He appears several times in the writings of Josephus, though conspicuously rarely considering the length of his tenure.

Crime

Unlike modern systems of jurisprudence, the Bible does not draw distinctions between criminal, civil, family, and religious law, either in its terminology or in its presentation of legal material. In the Bible, acts of deviance that are defined as criminal in virtually all societies are discussed alongside violations of a culturally specific, religious nature. For instance, the Ten Commandments prohibit murder and dishonoring parents (Exod. 20:12–13), as well as commanding Sabbath observance (Exod. 20:8–11). Any attempt to extract a system of criminal law from biblical materials must account for the fact that every culture defines deviance differently, with respect not only to specific acts but also to categories of deviance.

When viewed from the standpoint of the Bible’s organization of legal material, the terminology used, and the sanctions applied, there is substantial overlap in the Bible between “crime” and what modern societies define as noncriminal deviance. For present purposes, we might define “crime” broadly as including any act of social deviance that merits the application of a sanction by society at large (as opposed to the ad hoc fiats of rulers, as in Gen. 26:11) and that can be prohibited in a generally applied rule (even accounting for differences between free citizens and slaves, as in Exod. 21:18–21). As we will see, the Bible requires punishments, often severe, for a broad spectrum of offenses.

Capital Crimes

The Pentateuch mandates the death penalty for a wide variety of crimes. Often the mode of execution is unspecified. Where a particular mode is prescribed, the death penalty most often consisted of stoning (as in Num. 15:35) and less frequently of burning (Lev. 20:14) or shooting with arrows (Exod. 19:13).

Crimes incurring the death penalty include killing or murder (Exod. 21:12–14; Lev. 24:17; Num. 35:16), though the crime is aggravated or lessened depending on the intention behind it (Exod. 21:13–14) and whether a weapon is involved (Num. 35:16); attacking parents (Exod. 21:15); kidnapping and slave trading (Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7); cursing parents (Exod 21:17; Lev. 20:9); negligence resulting in death (Exod. 21:29); bestiality (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 20:15–16); breach of the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14–15; Num. 15:35); child sacrifice (Lev. 20:2); adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22); incest (Lev. 20:11–12); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); marrying a woman and her mother (Lev. 20:14); witchcraft (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27); blasphemy (Exod. 24:16); unauthorized approach to the tabernacle (Num. 1:51); idolatry (Num. 25:5); false prophecy and divination (Deut. 13:5); presumptuous prophecy (Deut. 18:20); enticing others to idolatry (Deut. 13:6–10); false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:19); and contempt for authorities (Deut. 17:2; Josh. 1:18).

When the body of an executed criminal was displayed by hanging, it had to be removed by nightfall (Deut. 21:22). The death penalty was not to be applied vicariously to family members of criminals (Deut. 24:16). In OT texts, execution was to be carried out by the victims (Deut. 13:9), families of victims (the “avenger of blood” of Num. 35:19), or witnesses to the crime.

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Corporal punishment. Beating as a criminal punishment is rare in the OT (Jer. 20:2; 37:15). Most OT references to beating occur in the context of the household, as a punishment for slaves or children. Deuteronomy 25:3 limits the number of strokes in a flogging to forty (see 2 Cor. 11:24). Flogging was commonly applied as a criminal punishment in Roman times, and it was a common mode of discipline within the Roman military (Acts 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:25; 1 Pet. 2:20).

Restitution. Crimes against property were punished by compelling the offender to make restitution by repaying, often in an amount that exceeded the actual damages, including in cases of theft or negligence (Exod. 21:33; 22:3–15); killing an animal (Lev. 24:18, 21); having sexual relations with a virgin not pledged to be married (Exod. 22:16); injuring a pregnant woman (Exod. 21:22); harming a slave (Exod. 21:26–27). Financial restitution could not be made for murder (Num. 35:31).

Retribution. The notion of the lex talionis, the law of retribution, is stated in Exod. 21:23–24: “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (cf. Lev. 24:19–20; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This formula appears in other ancient legal traditions. The idea of bodily mutilation may strike modern readers as barbaric, but such laws may actually have been relatively enlightened by ancient standards, as they imposed a proportional limit on retribution.

Incarceration. In modern societies, incarceration and probation account for the vast majority of the punishments resulting from criminal offenses. In the OT, incarceration is rarely mentioned apart from the imprisonment of war captives (e.g., Judg. 16:21) and political dissidents. Jeremiah was imprisoned several times for his criticism of the regime (Jer. 32:2; 37:15). Throughout the Bible, prisoners often are guarded by soldiers rather than by professional jailers.

Paul imprisoned Christians prior to his conversion (Acts 8:3), and he himself was imprisoned or placed under arrest several times (e.g., Acts 16:23; 20:23; 24:27; Rom. 16:7). John the Baptist was imprisoned after he criticized Herod (Mark 6:17). Again, in both cases, incarceration was used to silence and segregate someone whose free movement in society threatened political stability rather than to punish a common criminal. In Matt. 5:25–26 Jesus refers to imprisonment for an unspecified reason, though the threat that “you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” suggests that incarceration was a substitute for an unpaid fine or monetary penalty. This recalls Exod. 22:3, which mandates that a thief who could not make financial restitution for theft must be sold (as a slave).

Banishment and cities of refuge. A number of OT passages refer to the “cutting off” of a person from the community. It is not clear whether this language refers to exile or the death penalty; several of the crimes thus punished are known to be capital crimes in other texts.

The law of Num. 35:6–34 establishes six “cities of refuge” among the towns allotted to the Levites. To these cities an unintentional killer could flee from the “avenger of blood,” a relative of the victim, until such time as the case could be adjudicated by the whole community. A killer who was found to have acted unintentionally and without malice could remain in the city of refuge, safe from retribution, until the death of the high priest, at which time the killer was free to return home with impunity.

Trials and Judgments

In biblical times Israel did not have an independent judiciary. Judgments in criminal cases were rendered by local elders (Josh. 20:4), communities (Num. 35:24), monarchs, or other rulers and officials. The judges of the book of Judges were primarily military rulers, though they may have also adjudicated cases as a function of their military and political power (Judg. 4:5). Cases were decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony (Num. 35:30) and, in the case of capital crimes, on the basis of multiple witnesses (Deut. 17:6). In some cases, the Bible provides detailed statutory criteria for making such judgments, as in the discussion in Num. 35:16–28 of the difference between murder and unintentional killing. In some cases, where the determination of guilt or innocence would have been impossible, as in the case of suspected adultery, a verdict could be attained through divination (Num. 5:11–31). As already noted, the judgment of some cases could be affected by the slave status of those involved (Exod. 20:20–21; see also 22:8–9).

The trial and execution of Naboth, though ultimately a subversion of justice of the highest order, offers an insight into the operation of justice in Israel in the monarchic period (1 Kings 21:1–16). Naboth was accused on a trumped-up charge of blasphemy, a capital crime (Exod. 24:16). He was tried by the notables of his city, and on the testimony of two (false) witnesses (Deut. 17:6), he was then stoned to death.

From the standpoint of OT law, the trial and execution of Jesus were complicated by the context of concurrent systems of Jewish and Roman law and government. Like Naboth, Jesus was accused by false witnesses (Matt. 26:60–61). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin determined that because Jesus had blasphemed in its presence by identifying himself as the Messiah and the Son of God, further witness testimony was unnecessary in order to achieve the desired result, the death penalty (Matt. 26:65–66; John 19:7). Ultimately, the Sanhedrin had to involve the Roman governor because it lacked the authority to execute a criminal (John 18:31). By the time Jesus was taken before Pilate, the charge had been changed from a religious one to a political one: Jesus claimed to be the king of the Jews, thus subverting Roman authority (Matt. 26:11–12). Eventually, Pilate tortured and executed Jesus not because he saw merit in the charges but rather to avoid a riot (Matt. 27:24; John 19:4, 12). Luke reports that Jesus also had a trial before Herod Antipas, the ruler to whom Jesus was subject as a Galilean (23:7). Thus, the trial of Jesus in some ways reflects both Jewish and Roman law, but it also involves some purely pragmatic (and legally and morally questionable) actions on the part of both the Sanhedrin and Pilate.

Criminal

Capital Crimes

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Trials and Judgments

Governor

Old Testament

The English word “governor” is used to translate a number of Hebrew words. The term indicates one who has been designated with authority over a certain region, especially under the rule of a king or emperor. The position of governor is found throughout the Pentateuch, the Writings, and the Prophets. Notable in the OT are the governors appointed by the foreign kings both at home and in occupied territories.

One notable governor was Gedaliah, ruler of the Jewish remnant left in Judah during the deportation, who reported to the king of Babylon (Jer. 40:11). Later, he was assassinated by Ishmael (Jer. 41:2). This provoked great fear, causing some to flee to Egypt (Jer. 41:17–18).

Another notable individual who governed the Jewish people upon their return to Jerusalem after the captivity was Sheshbazzar, governor under Cyrus (Ezra 5:14). He had been entrusted with the vessels for the house of God in Jerusalem that had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar (1:7–8). This same Sheshbazzar had begun building the foundation of the temple by the legal decree of Cyrus the king (5:14–6:6). Subsequently, Zerubbabel (under Darius I) became governor and completed the foundation and the rest of the temple (Ezra 3–6; see also Hag. 1:1–15). He and the other workers are said to have had their spirits stirred to do the work (Hag. 1:14).

New Testament

In the NT, the most common word for governor is hēgemōn. As in the OT, governors were appointed by higher authorities who delegated to them the authority to rule.

Of note among these governors was Pontius Pilate, appointed in AD 26 by Tiberius. Pilate’s fortunes seemed to wax and wane with those of General Sejanus, with whom he shared many political and social views. When he first arrived in Palestine, Pilate provoked protests by secretly bringing army standards bearing the images of Roman emperors—idols in Jewish eyes—into Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.55–59). On another occasion demonstrations broke out when Pilate used money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct for Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18.60–62). Pilate sent soldiers to surround and attack the protestors, many of whom were killed. Luke 13:1 refers to a similar episode near the temple mount in which Pilate massacred some Galileans, “whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” Typical of the Romans, Pilate met protest with ruthless and overwhelming force. At Jesus’ trial, though Pilate knew that Jesus was innocent (John 18:38), he condemned Jesus to crucifixion to avoid antagonizing the religious leaders. This kind of action was characteristic of Pilate. He was an unscrupulous and self-seeking leader who loathed the Jewish leadership but feared antagonizing them. Josephus notes that during the tumult of the Samaritans (to assemble at Mount Gerizim), Pilate put them to flight, killing some of them. The Samaritans complained about Pilate’s murderous ways to Vitellius, who was friendly to them, and he recalled Pilate to Rome to answer before Tiberius, but Pilate took so long getting there that Tiberius was dead when he finally arrived (Josephus, Ant. 18.85–89). Pilate was eventually removed from office, and we hear nothing else from him.

Two other Judean governors who appear in the NT are Felix and Festus, who played a role in the apostle Paul’s trial (Acts 24–26). Felix’s wife, Drusilla, was a Jewess, and she was with him at Paul’s second hearing. On this second occasion Paul reasoned powerfully with Felix, so much so that Felix became frightened about the future and sent Paul away. His fear notwithstanding, Felix sought to exploit the situation for monetary gain (no doubt, bribes were common), but Paul made no response. Two years later Felix was replaced by the next governor, Porcius Festus. Festus heard the defense of Paul (Acts 26) and sent him to Rome after his appeal, though both Festus and Herod agreed that Paul could have been set free had he not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:30–32).

On one occasion in the NT, the word “governor” is translated from the word ethnarchēs. Aretas of the Nabateans was the ethnarch in Damascus and laid siege to capture the apostle Paul, but Paul escaped through a window in the wall, probably at night (2 Cor. 11:32–33).

As opposed to a governor, a “proconsul” (anthypatos) was a ruler of a senatorial province and so was appointed by the Roman senate rather than the emperor. These provinces were usually more loyal and peaceful and thus had little need of a strong military presence. Such was the case with the proconsul on Cyprus who lived in Paphos, Sergius Paulus. This man is noted by Luke as intelligent and ready to hear the message of Paul and Barnabas. The sorcerer Elymas (Bar-Jesus) sought to turn the proconsul from the faith and so was struck blind at Paul’s command. This Roman proconsul, a man of political stature on Cyprus, then became a believer (Acts 13:4–12). Another proconsul, Gallio, ruled in Achaia during Paul’s sojourn there on his second missionary journey. From information gained from ancient written sources, chiefly the Gallio Inscription, the beginning of his tenure as proconsul in Achaia occurred between AD 50 and 52. When Paul was brought to trial before Gallio, Gallio tossed the case out as a religious squabble (Acts 18:12–16). In another reference to the proconsulate, Paul’s detractors in Ephesus were told by the town secretary to take their complaints against Paul to the proconsuls of that area, lest they be accused of provoking a riot and an illegal assembly (19:38–41).

Jesus himself had previously prophesied that the disciples would testify before kings and governors (Matt. 10:18), something that was fulfilled by Paul as he spoke before Herod, Felix, Festus, and Nero. Additionally, Luke noted Quirinius as the governor of Syria when the first census was taken, around the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:2).

The apostles note that the community of faith is to submit to rulers such as governors as they execute their God-ordained task, since the praise of good and punishment of evil is also the interest of the divine creator and ordainer of such persons (1 Pet. 2:14; cf. Rom. 13:1–5). The community of faith is also to pray for all in authority (including governors, though not mentioned specifically), so that the church will be able to lead a quiet existence in godliness (1 Tim. 2:1–2).

Hall

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

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

Hall of Judgment

The building in Solomon’s palace where he heard complaints and rendered judicial decisions (1 Kings 7:7 [NET, NASB, HCSB: “Hall of Judgment”]). The Hall of Justice was covered with cedar from floor to ceiling. In the KJV, the praitōrion of the Roman governor in John 18:28 is rendered as “hall of judgment” (NIV: “palace”; NRSV: “headquarters”).

Palace

In the OT, many palaces are referenced, but the first of importance is that of Pharaoh as Abraham sojourned in Egypt (Gen. 12:15). When the children of Israel moved to Egypt because of the famine, they did not know that Joseph was in charge of the palace (Gen. 41:40; 45:16; Acts 7:10). Later, even the palace of Pharaoh was overrun by the plagues sent by God upon Egypt (Exod. 8:3, 24).

King Hiram of Tyre sent cedar logs and carpenters to David so that a house could be built for him (2 Sam. 5:11). It later vexed David that he himself lived in a palace while the ark of God was housed in a tent. This prompted David to prepare for building the temple after consulting with Nathan (2 Sam. 7:2–29).

Even more extensive discussion is given about the palace of Solomon. It took thirteen years to complete and was built with wood from the cedars of Lebanon. It was 150 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with foundations of high-quality hewn stone, cedar columns, and beam supports. From foundation to roof the sides were trimmed with high-grade chiseled stone. There was a throne room lined with cedar from floor to ceiling. There were similarly designed living quarters for Solomon and for the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kings 7:1–12). The account of the tremendous labor and cost for the palace and temple is given in 1 Kings 9:10–23. Later, Solomon decorated the inside of the palace extensively with gold (1 Kings 10:16–22). Eventually, the king of Babylon took these treasures from the royal palace and burned it down (2 Kings 24:13; 25:9).

In the NT, the Greek word basileios is used in reference to a palace once, when Jesus notes that in contrast to John the Baptist, those who wear soft clothing and have luxurious lifestyles live in royal palaces (Luke 7:25). The home of the Roman governor (praitōrion) is referred to as a palace in some translations (e.g., John 18:28, 33; 19:9 NIV). John explains that the Jews did not actually enter the praetorium, so as not to be defiled for the Passover feast (John 18:28). Other NT references note the palace of Herod where Paul was kept under guard (Acts 23:35) and that of Caesar where Paul may have been imprisoned in Rome (Phil. 1:13). The testimony of Paul was apparently well known there, and some of his guards became converts to Christianity (Phil. 1:13; 4:22).

Praetorium

The official residence of a Roman governor, military commander, or official. In the Gospel accounts, the praetorium of Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem is the location of some of the beatings, mockings, and trials of Jesus (Matt. 27:27–31; Mark 15:16–20; John 18:28–19:15). The precise location of the Jerusalem praetorium is uncertain. Some identify it as the Antonia Fortress, on the northern edge of the temple area, while others have concluded that it was the palace of Herod the Great in the western part of the city. Paul was held in the praetorium in Caesarea for two years while awaiting trial (Acts 23:33–26:32). The term could also be used of the praetorian guard, Caesar’s personal troops. This seems to be the meaning in Phil. 1:12–13, where Paul (probably writing from imprisonment in Rome) says, “It has become clear throughout the whole palace guard [praitōrion] and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ.”

Punish

Capital Crimes

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Trials and Judgments

Punishment

Capital Crimes

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Trials and Judgments

Roman Law

To understand the persons and events of the NT, it is important to have at least a cursory understanding of Roman law. Rome held absolute power over its people and vassals from the time of its foundation (c. 750 BC) until the collapse of its empire (c. AD 500); thus, its understanding of law had influence on both philosophical and pragmatic levels. Roman law was remarkable for the detailed yet succinct way cases were treated. Roman law was primarily private law in character; that is, it was law focused on relationships between people. Fathers of families were significant figures in Roman law and custom. They held great power over their wives, children, and slaves. Precedent also played an important role in Roman law, with ritualized legal formulas and style being the key components. Generally speaking, parties determined the outcome between themselves with the help of an arbitrator. Only when such arbitration was unsuccessful, or at the end of arbitration when contractual steps had to be taken, was a jurist/judge brought in. Public trials were more a case of oratory and debate than legal wrangling and procedure.

Roman citizenship. Much of Roman law and activity was dependent on the status of the participants. Roman citizenship itself carried with it a privileged status in terms of law, property, and governance. Citizenship and the rights related to it also varied, depending on the class of the person. The native peoples who lived in territories conquered by Rome, citizens of Roman client states, and Roman allies could be given a limited form of Roman citizenship such as the Latin Right, which permitted land ownership, marriage rights, and certain rights in matters of punishment and detainment. Women’s rights varied over time; however, women were never accorded all the rights of citizens, since they could not vote or hold office. They could, however, own property. Slaves were considered property and had only certain very limited rights as granted by statute. They could essentially be treated in any fashion considered appropriate by their owners. Despite this, a freed slave was granted a form of Roman citizenship. All slaves freed by Roman owners automatically received a limited Roman citizenship. The law of the magistrates as applied to foreigners focused on three areas of interest: trade law, finding a way to apply Roman law to foreign societies, and the procurator’s own sense of fair play and justice.

Paul was a Roman citizen from birth (Acts 22:28), though given his lineage, this citizenship would have been similar to that of the Latin Right. He took advantage of his citizenship at numerous points during his missionary travels by limiting punishment and by an appeal to Caesar (Acts 22:24–29; 25:10–12). There is little information about how people were able to document their citizenship, though undoubtedly some sort of official document would have served such a purpose.

Household and family. As noted above, the father of a household had almost absolute power in that sphere. In relation to this, Paul and Peter’s instructions to the various churches about household relationships stand in stark contrast to the culture within which they were expressed (see Eph. 5:21; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet. 2:18–3:7). Like Jews, Romans viewed the family as the core element of their society. What occurred in the family was an expression of the core values of the society. For the church to have granted the freedom it did to women and others (Gal. 3:28) would have been difficult for many in the culture to accept. Furthermore, Paul in several places seems to call for restraint in Christian expression of freedom so as not to cause ill repute for the Christian community.

History and hierarchy. Concerning Roman jurisprudence, the system went through many phases of development over the periods of the republic and the empire. During the period of the republic (753–31 BC), the civil law was the primary focus of development. Roman law, like other ancient systems, originally adopted the principle of personality: laws of the state applied only to its citizens. Foreigners had no rights in their courts unless protected by a treaty. Gradually, a more generalized legal code developed in Rome that was applied to everyone, and by the time of the empire, such perspectives of law were well established. This may explain the different treatment received by Paul (and others) in relationship to whether they were known to be citizens.

Procurators and prefects were governors appointed by Rome over Judea after the removal of Archelaus in AD 6 and over all of Palestine at the death of Herod Agrippa. Governors such as Pontius Pilate were the highest power in their province, but they answered to the legate, who could replace them, and ultimately to Caesar, who could overrule them. They had to give their assent to lower local courts before a sentence involving death could be carried out. Because of the lower standing that noncitizens held, the governor often was quick to sacrifice them in order to maintain peace and avoid disturbances. Pilate’s treatment of Jesus seems to fall into such a category.

In general, disputes between members of the same subject state were settled by that state’s own courts according to its own law, whereas disputes between provincials of different states or between provincials and Romans were resolved by the governor’s court applying these principles.

Religion. Since Rome had no centralized cult, the Romans would not execute someone simply on religious grounds. Instead, there needed to be a perception of political revolt, and the charges had to be specific (Matt. 27:12; John 18:29). Because Roman law and trial were more a matter of oratory and reason than legal maneuvering and loopholes, it is not surprising that both Pilate and Felix allowed such leeway in the questioning of Jesus and Paul (John 18; Acts 24).

Truth

While a modern understanding of the word “truth” suggests a direct correspondence to fact or reality, Scripture presents truth in broader terms.

Old Testament. The OT not only portrays truth as an honest factual account but also places it within a relationship characterized by faithfulness and reliability. The Hebrew word translated as “truth,” ’emet, also is translated as “faithfulness,” “security,” “reliability.” The word often appears juxtaposed to words that involve a relationship, including “love” (Ps. 26:3), “kindness” (Gen. 24:27), “mercy” (Ps. 40:11), “justice” (Isa. 59:14–15), and “righteousness” (Isa. 48:1). Truth is attributed primarily not to external facts, but rather to a person or community in faithfulness.

Often described as something that belongs to God (Ps. 25:5), truth is associated with his love (26:3). Yahweh is the God of truth (31:5) and is near to all who call on him in truth (145:18). God’s truth protects (140:11) and guides (43:3). Following God means walking in his truth (26:3). God speaks the truth (Isa. 45:19) and values truth (Prov. 12:22), and he expects his people to do the same (Prov. 23:23).

Often involving speech, truth is a crucial element for justice in a community, especially in a court setting. A truthful witness gives an honest testimony and brings healing, but a false witness tells lies and brings destruction (Prov. 12:17–18). Yet only the truth will endure (12:19). Truth is needed to make sound judgments (Zech. 8:16). The absence of truth in Israel’s society is denounced by the prophets, who declare truth to have stumbled (Isa. 59:14) and even to have perished (Jer. 7:28). In Jer. 5:1 it is said that God will forgive the entire city of Jerusalem if one person is found who deals honestly and seeks the truth (cf. Gen. 18:26–32). No such person is found. Nevertheless, it is God’s vision for Jerusalem to be called the “City of Truth” (Zech. 8:3 NASB, NKJV).

Several OT narratives display how truth may not be evident in every relationship. In 1 Kings 22:16 (// 2 Chron. 18:15) King Ahab makes the prophet Micaiah repeatedly swear to be telling God’s truth because he (rightly) suspects the prophet of lying. As an Egyptian ruler, Joseph requires his brothers to prove the truth of their words (Gen. 42:16), perhaps keeping in mind the history of his ancestor Abraham’s dealings with the Egyptian king (12:10–20). Sometimes the truth of one relationship holds priority over duties involved in another relationship. For example, in Exod. 1:15–21 the Hebrew midwives have a truthful relationship with (Hebrew) babies and with God even as they lie to the king of Egypt.

New Testament. In the NT, truth signifies the gospel (Eph. 1:13) as well as Jesus himself (John 14:6). Whereas Pilate asks, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), the NT answers, “Jesus!” The topic of truth is predominant in the Gospel of John. Jesus is full of grace and truth (John 1:14), tells the truth he heard from God (8:44), and in fact is the truth (5:33). Truth involves action. Whoever lives by the truth comes out of darkness into the light (3:21). Worship of God must be done in spirit and in truth (4:23–24). It is the truth that will set people free (8:32). Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the “Spirit of truth” (15:26), whose role is to guide the followers of Jesus in all truth, speaking what he hears from the Father (John 15–16).

Although the topic of truth is seldom mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, the phrase “I tell you the truth” is attributed to Jesus seventy-eight times (e.g., Matt. 5:18; 6:2; Mark 8:12; 9:41; Luke 9:27; 23:43; John 1:51; 13:21 NCV), showing it to be a major theme. The apostle Paul reminds the church at Corinth that love rejoices with the truth (1 Cor. 13:6). Truth describes not only knowledge of reality (Acts 24:8) but also the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 11:10) as well as the type of life that a follower of Christ should exhibit (Gal. 2:14; Titus 1:1). Truth can be distorted (Acts 20:30), suppressed (Rom. 1:18), and rejected (Rom. 2:8). While truth can involve speech (Eph. 4:15), those who belong to the truth show it by their love (1 John 1:6; 3:18–20).

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because John 18:28-40 is mentioned in the definition.

Administration of Law

Ancient court systems reflected the needs, values, and structures of the broader society. Not surprisingly, the court systems in nomadic and urban societies are quite different. Nomadic courts were more informal, based more on custom than law. The context of nomadic justice was located primarily within the family and clan. Those with disputes sought out elders and wise leaders to settle them. Urban court systems used more-fixed institutions of judges under the supervision of priests and kings. Even in an urban system the court functioned on a case-by-case basis and drew little or no distinction between criminal and civil offenses. Cases dealt primarily with an injury and the compensation for the injury. The basic process involved stating a case before a judge, each side calling witnesses, and the judge giving a judgment.

Old Testament

Courts in ancient Israel reflected features of both nomadic and urban court systems as well as the broader judicial practices of the ancient Near East. In ancient Israel a case could be tried by the elders, a judge, a priest, or the king. The elders were heads of families and leading citizens. They sat at the city gate (Prov. 31:23), where they heard cases (Ruth 4:1–12), oversaw property transactions (Gen. 23:10–20), settled disputes, and imposed penalties (Deut. 22:18–19). As Israelite society developed, judges were appointed from each tribe and town to administer justice (Deut. 16:18). If a case was too difficult, the judge could transfer the case to a higher court and judge (Exod. 18:21–22). Once a higher court gave a verdict, the participants and lower courts were bound by the decision (Deut. 17:8–13). Priests distinguished between the holy and the common, between clean and unclean (Lev. 10:10). However, they could judge all types of cases, not just religious ones (Deut. 21:5; Ezek. 44:23–24).

With the establishment of the monarchy, the king became the highest judge, and the elders and priests became minor judges. David appointed judges from the Levites over all Israel to administer justice (1 Chron. 26:29), but he also heard cases himself. Solomon provided the quintessential example of a wise judge as he settled the case of the two women and the one remaining child (1 Kings 3:16–28). Solomon moved the court from the city gate to the “Hall of Justice” in his palace (1 Kings 7:7). Jehoshaphat reformed Judah’s court system and established two courts, one over cases concerning God, the other over cases concerning the king (2 Chron. 19:5–11).

The OT does not provide a detailed description of the Israelite court procedures; however, glimpses into the procedures can be pieced together from several passages. Whether at the city gate, sanctuary, or palace, a private person who appeared as a plaintiff initiated the judicial action (Deut. 25:7–8). The parties stood before the judge, while the judge was seated (Deut. 19:17). However, the judge stood to pronounce judgment (Isa. 3:13). The plaintiff was the satan, “accuser” or “adversary” (Ps. 109:6). The accusation could be given orally (Isa. 41:21) or in writing (Job 31:35–36). There was no public prosecutor or defender. Each party brought its own case and witnesses. A conviction required at least two witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15). Witnesses accepted responsibility for the sentence, which is why they had to throw the first stones when such a penalty was in order (Deut. 17:7; John 8:7). If they provided false testimony, they faced the punishment for the crime about which they testified. Each side could produce physical evidence to make its case (Deut. 22:13–17). If a case lacked sufficient evidence or witnesses, an oath or an ordeal could be undertaken to support one’s case (Exod. 22:6–10). At times, lots were cast to select a guilty individual (Josh. 7:14–15) or to end a quarrel (Prov. 18:18). After everything had been examined, the judge acquitted the innocent and condemned the guilty (Deut. 25:1). Depending upon the crime, the penalty could be a fine, compensation, bodily punishment, or even death. Jail was primarily used for those awaiting trial and not as a punishment. If evidence and witnesses were lacking and a murder went unsolved, then a sacrifice was made to declare the community’s innocence and to atone for the community (Deut. 21:1–8).

Ideally, judges were just, righteous, fair, and defenders of the weak (Deut. 16:18–20). Unfortunately, multiple examples exist of false witnesses (Deut. 19:18) and corrupt judges who accepted bribes, perverted justice, and showed favoritism (Exod. 23:3, 8; Mic. 3:11). Ultimately, God was the supreme judge of all, protector of the weak, just, and no respecter of persons.

New Testament

During the NT period numerous lesser Sanhedrins, or councils, administered justice in Jewish communities. The lesser Sanhedrins consisted of twenty-three members, but the one in Jerusalem, the Great Sanhedrin, consisted of the high priest and seventy members comprised of priests, scribes, elders, and laity from among the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative and judicial body, and it wielded its own police force (Acts 5:24–26). The Romans allowed the Great Sanhedrin broad authority over internal and religious matters, but they limited its ability to exercise capital punishment (John 18:31). The deaths of Stephen and James were probably lynchings rather than formal executions. Clearly, the Great Sanhedrin had the authority to administer corporal punishment (2 Cor. 11:24).

The Mishnah provides insight into the Great Sanhedrin’s judicial procedure. However, several of the procedures stand in tension with the procedures described in the Gospels concerning Jesus’ trial. Cases were to be heard only during the day, but at least a hearing into the charges facing Jesus occurred at night. The proceedings against Jesus were held at the high priest’s palace instead of properly at the court (John 18:13). Capital cases could not be heard the day before the Sabbath or a festival, but Jesus was condemned on Friday during Passover.

The trials of Jesus and Paul fit well with what is known about Roman law. Roman regional rulers heard cases involving public order but usually left smaller issues in the hands of local courts. For example, Pilate, a prefect, initially wanted to release Jesus, and Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, refused to hear the charges against Paul. Such officials could also delay a decision for extended periods of time. Hoping to receive a bribe, the procurator Felix held Paul for two years without a judgment (Acts 24:26). Roman officials also had the discretion to send defendants to their home province. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod because Jesus was from Galilee, and Felix inquired about Paul’s home in Cilicia. When hearing a case, the Roman official gave the defendant and the accuser opportunities to make their respective cases and to call witnesses. Pilate gave Jesus an opportunity to defend himself, and Festus explained that it is “not the Roman custom” to condemn someone who has not yet faced the accusers and put on a defense against their charges (Acts 25:16). As a Roman citizen, Paul was afforded rights in the court system. When Paul was imprisoned and beaten without trial, he demanded an apology from the Philippian officials (16:37). Paul’s Roman citizenship also gave him the right to appeal to Caesar (25:11).

Paul expected Christians to abide by the decisions of the courts (Rom. 13:1–3), but he also encouraged Christians to avoid taking other Christians to court (1 Cor. 6:1–11) because they should be able to settle disputes within the church.

Antonia Fortress

The primary military fortification of Jerusalem near the Herodian temple, also called the Antonia Fortress. The fortress was built in approximately AD 6 and served as a palatial residence for King Herod and a barracks for the Roman troops. In addition, Herod required the garments of the high priest be housed in the tower. The fortress, named by Herod after his friend Mark Antony, was actually a major renovation of an existing Maccabean fortification. The fortress was strategically located to overlook the temple so that a garrison could easily deal with any disturbance in the temple.

The tower is not specifically mentioned in the NT, but the Jewish historian Josephus describes it in detail (J.W. 5.238–46). The tower was built upon a rock, seventy-five feet high, overlooking the temple and its courtyards. Josephus describes the tower as being lavishly furnished like a palace, containing baths, courtyards, and spacious apartments. It was capable of housing numerous soldiers.

The tower may have served as an official residence for the Roman procurator. Thus, the tower’s courtyard has traditionally been considered the site of Jesus’ trial before Pilate (John 18:28; 19:13). However, Herod’s palace may have been used for the procurator and as a residence of the governor. The pavement beneath the modern convent Notre Dame de Sion was traditionally considered to be from the courtyard of the tower, but it has been dated to the second century by recent archaeological work.

The fortress was destroyed during Titus’s siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the modern site of the tower has yet to be determined conclusively.

Beloved Disciple

Traditionally identified with John the son of Zebedee, the Gospel of John depicts him as the ideal eyewitness to Jesus and as the ideal author. He first explicitly appears in John 13–21. In representing the Beloved Disciple as the author of the Gospel of John (John 21:24–25), the author thus claims a privileged place for its revelation about Jesus, perhaps in relation to the Gospel of Mark, which many in the early church considered to have Peter as its primary source of testimony.

Bible Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bible Versions

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

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

Old Testament

Castle

A strict division between fortresses and cities was not possible in much of the ancient world, since many major towns were surrounded with protective walls and fortifications. Royal figures, however, did have stand-alone fortresses built within some towns. In 2 Sam. 5:7–9 David captures Zion, a fortress-city, from the Jebusites (see also 1 Chron. 11:5–7). Solomon further enhances the defensive fortifications of Jerusalem (1 Kings 3:1; 2 Chron. 2:1), as do several kings who come after him (e.g., 1 Kings 15:18; 16:18; 18:3; 2 Kings 11:5; 2 Chron. 26:9, 15).

Royal residences, such as those of the pharaohs (Gen. 12:15) and of the kings of Babylon (2 Kings 20:18; Dan. 1:4), Tyre (2 Sam. 24:7), Samaria (2 Kings 15:25), and Persia (Esther 1:5; 5:1; 7:7–8), also served as castles. In Nehemiah’s time, Hananiah is made ruler of the palace fort in Jerusalem (Neh. 2:8; 7:2). Fortified towers also contributed to the defensive equipment of many ancient cities (Gen. 11:1–9; 35:21; Judg. 8:8–9, 17; 9:46, 49; Neh. 3:1; 12:39; Song 4:4; Luke 13:4).

In addition to palaces and fortified cities, numerous smaller castle-type structures are mentioned in the Bible. These forts, usually fairly small, were important for guarding trade routes and major entrance points into a kingdom, and they allowed a ruler to exercise control over a much larger region than would have been possible otherwise. Normally these structures were composed of stone, hardened mud-brick, or a combination of the two, and constituted a tightly packed arrangement of walls, gates, and guard towers. A system of fortresses existed throughout Israel in the time of the unified monarchy, such as those built by David throughout Aram (2 Sam. 8:6) and Edom (2 Sam. 8:14; 1 Chron. 18:13), and those built by Solomon (1 Kings 9:19). Later, Rehoboam expanded this network of forts, which included the strong fortress at Lachish, and further built up the defensive capabilities of many of the towns in Judah (2 Chron. 11:5–11). The later kings Jehoshaphat and Jotham continued this work of fortress building throughout Judah (2 Chron. 17:12; 27:4).

In the four centuries after the conquests of Alexander the Great, new fortresses were built throughout what would become the Roman Empire, including Herod the Great’s palace in Caesarea (Acts 23:35). The Antonia Fortress (see Acts 21:31–37; 22:24; 23:10, 16, 32) overlooked the temple area in Jerusalem and was the headquarters of the Roman army cohort stationed in the city. Herod’s palace on the western hill of Jerusalem may have been the headquarters of Roman governors of Judea, although the Antonia Fortress is also a possible location for this building (see Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28, 33; 19:9).

The image of a fortress is often invoked in poetic contexts in the Bible to signify God’s unfailing protection (2 Sam. 22:2; Pss. 18:2; 31:2; 46:8; 62:2; 91:2; 144:2; Prov. 14:26; Isa. 25:4; Jer. 16:19). Prophetic denunciation of the fortresses of Israel’s enemies is common in the OT (Isa. 23:11, 13–14; Jer. 49:27; Dan. 11; Amos 1). The destruction of Israel’s own fortresses, especially Jerusalem, is also a common judgment motif in the prophets (Isa. 25:12; Jer. 6:5; 17:27; Hos. 8:14). See also Fort, Fortification.

Christ as King

The NT begins with the claim that Jesus is the “son” or descendant of King David, presupposing the significance of the biblical narrative about the kings of Israel for understanding the gospel (Matt. 1:1, 6; see also Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). The epithet also creates an almost immediate conflict with Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1–2), who was given the title “King of the Jews” by the Roman senate in 40 BC, although he was not a Jew. Herod unsuccessfully attempts to kill the infant king, but Jesus finally is executed by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate as “King of the Jews” (Matt. 27:37 pars.).

Greco-Roman and Jewish Backgrounds

The conflict between the king and the child somewhat parallels a more extensive Greco-Roman motif. Virgil, in his Fourth Bucolic, offers a vision of a golden age to attend the birth of a child king. (Christians in the Middle Ages interpreted his poem as a prophecy of Christ’s birth.) The threat upon Jesus’ life also resembles Herodotus’s account of Cyrus: King Astyages has a dream vision that the magi interpret to be a prophecy that the child of his daughter will eventually rule in his place. He commands Harpagus, his most faithful servant, to take the male child, “adorned for its death,” and kill him. Overcome with emotion, Harpagus pawns the child off to a cowherd, Mitradates, who is instructed to lay the child “in the most desolate part of the mountains.” When Mitradates’s wife sees the beauty of the child, she pleads for his life and devises a plan to switch her stillborn child with Cyrus. They then raise Cyrus under a pseudonym as their own (Herodotus, Hist. 1.107–30). Interestingly, the prophet Isaiah refers to Cyrus as the Lord’s “messiah” or “anointed” (Isa. 45:1), a uniquely positive role for a non-Israelite king. By God’s power, Cyrus will free the exiles (Isa. 45:13).

In the OT, God promises David, the king of Israel, an eternal reign for his “offspring” (2 Sam. 7:12–16). After the fall of the Davidic monarchy, the prophets reiterate the promise in visions of God’s future salvation (Isa. 55:3; Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11; Mic. 4:8; 5:1–5 [cited in Matt. 2:5–6]; Zech. 3:8). By the first century, “son of David” had become a popular messianic title, signifying a warrior who would free the Jews from Roman oppression and establish an everlasting kingdom. Although not viewed as a supernatural being, the Davidic messiah, some claimed, would be without sin, ruling with perfect wisdom, justice, mercy, and power—different from his predecessors. He would restore the ancient tribal divisions and regather the Diaspora, Jews living outside Judea and Galilee. The nations (non-Jews) would pay him homage (see Psalms of Solomon).

Jesus’ Kingship

The popular Jewish emphasis on a violent overthrow of Rome probably explains why in the Gospels Jesus himself does not emphasize his kingship in his ministry, except for the explicit fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy of a humble king riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matt. 21:1–9 pars.; cf. Zech. 9:9; see also Isa. 62:11). However, following his resurrection and final instructions to his disciples, Jesus ascends to the right hand of the Father (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:6–11; 2:33–36), a coronation ceremony foretold in the psalms (Pss. 2; 110). He presently reigns from heaven (Rev. 1:5; cf. Matt. 28:18), but he will return to make his authority explicit on earth, which includes the dispensing of justice (2 Thess. 1:5–12). His rule is present, however, in the lives of those who obey him and wherever the Holy Spirit is manifested. Through his ministry, the God of Israel comes near so as to once again exercise sovereign power on behalf of God’s people. For Christians, Jesus alone is Lord and Savior (Phil. 3:20). Paul presents Jesus as the “Savior of all people” (1 Tim. 4:10). This title was given to the Roman emperors. (The preamble to a decree by the council of the province of Asia describes Augustus as “the father who gives us happy life; the savior of all mankind.”)

The Western church has largely maintained a distinction between two spheres of authority: political and ecclesiastical. Hosius, bishop of Cordova (AD 296–357), wrote to Emperor Constantius, “For into your hands God has put the kingdom; the affairs of his Church he has committed to us. . . . We are not permitted to exercise an earthly rule; and you, Sire, are not authorized to burn incense.” Paul affirms the continuing role of government despite the overarching lordship of Jesus Christ, who preferred to speak of the kingdom of God, a restored theocracy that incorporates yet transcends the Davidic covenant (Rom. 13:1–7; cf. John 18:36). But this process does begin a delegitimizing of all contrary claims to authority and will lead to their complete withdrawal. For this reason, the kingdom of God cannot be separated from the political, economic, and religious conflicts taking place in Roman Palestine in the first century and wherever similar conflicts occur today.

Church and State Separation

The idea that the church and state should remain independent entities in order to preserve religious and civil freedom. While this idea has taken most of its shape from discussions in the United States, the Bible often speaks about the attitudes of God’s people toward their government.

After Israel was freed from Egypt, God made it a “holy nation” (Exod. 19:5–6). All ancient Near Eastern nations were theocracies, and Israel was no different. As a theocracy, “church and state” were united under God’s rule, but this union was imperfect. Prophets frequently challenged wicked leaders (1 Sam. 2:27–36; 1 Kings 18:2). Then Israel was divided (1 Kings 12). Finally the exile obliterated any “church-state” unity that Israelite society had left. Daniel and his friends had to experience the difficulty of living faithfully in foreign societies.

But the exiles helped Israel to understand that God’s kingdom was eternal (Dan. 2:44–45). In the face of Roman rule, Jesus announced its appearing (Mark 1:15), but he did not advocate military revolt as did the Zealots of his day (John 18:36). Following Jesus, Paul taught of a citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20) while affirming some loyalty to Rome (Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1–2). Peter concurred (1 Pet. 2:11–17), though he also emphasized the theme of God’s judgment (2 Pet. 3:7), a theme continued against imperial Rome in Revelation. In sum, the church finds itself as a kingdom among kingdoms. While warfare occurs in the spiritual realm (Eph. 6:12), God’s people are to conduct themselves as peaceful pilgrims as they look for a better country (Heb. 11:16).

Civil Rights

Those individual entitlements protected by a government, such as due process and equal protection under the law (cf. Amendments 13 and 14 of the U.S. Constitution). God gives secular rulers the authority to legislate, enforce, and interpret civil laws; he has therefore entrusted them with administering justice, which includes protecting civil rights (Rom. 13:1–7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13–14; cf. Matt. 22:21). Until Christ returns to rule his kingdom on earth, the church must defer the protection of civil rights to the state (see John 18:36).

Nonetheless, as Christians preach the gospel, they can embody and promote the principles characteristic of God’s kingdom. Since God created man and woman in his own image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), Christians ought to practice and promote the respect and dignity of all people. All humans bear God’s image regardless of the circumstances of their birth, and whether or not they are Christians. Hence, the Bible explicitly grounds the rights to life (Gen. 9:6) and fair treatment (James 3:9) in the principle of the divine image. For these reasons, believing citizens do well to advocate a society that serves justice regardless of an individual or group’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or class.

Conscientious Objector

A person exempted from military training and service on the basis of deeply held religious convictions against participating in warfare.

Jesus’ call to “not resist an evil person” and to “turn to them the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29–36) makes the clearest case for Christian conscientious objection. Jesus also blessed peacemakers (Matt. 5:9), commanded love of enemy and neighbor (Matt. 5:44; 22:39; Mark 12:31), and refused to build his kingdom by force (John 6:15; 18:36). Beyond violence, war may violate the Christian’s conscience because it often necessitates deception and breeds fear, hatred, greed, and pride, be it individual, national, ethnic, or otherwise.

Conversely, Christians are obligated to obey civil authorities (Rom. 13:1–6; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13–14), for whom Scripture reserves the right to wield the sword (Rom. 13:4). Some argue that these verses allow or oblige believers to fight when called to duty. Furthermore, this sinful world may require loving one’s neighbors by using violence to protect them. If Christians enjoy the freedoms and well-being defended by a military, should they not contribute to it in combat, provided the war is just?

If Jesus condemns violence, however, the conscientious objector may invoke Peter’s claim, “We must obey God rather than human beings!” (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:19). Many nonviolent forms of resistance exist, so conscientious objectors may still help defend their country by serving in the military or elsewhere in noncombatant roles.

Court Systems

Old Testament

New Testament

Crime and Punishment

Capital Crimes

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Trials and Judgments

Garden

An enclosed farming area where vegetables and fruit trees are cultivated. Vineyards, orchards, and olive groves belong to a broader category of the garden. Gardens in biblical times generally were surrounded by a wall of mud-bricks or stones, along with a hedge of thorny bushes (Prov. 24:31; Song 4:12; Isa. 5:5). A booth or watchtower was set up to guard it from thieves and wild animals (Job 27:18; Isa. 1:8; 5:2). For irrigation, water was raised from wells or brought in through a canal system connected to rivers or springs.

Since most of the land of Canaan was a hilly and arid region, a well-watered garden was highly valued. Thus Balaam blesses the tents of the Israelites to be “like gardens beside a river” (Num. 24:6–7; cf. Ps. 1:3; Jer. 17:8). Notably, in Gen. 13:10 the Plain of Jordan, in its fertility from the ample water supply, is likened to two places: “the garden of the Lord” and “the land of Egypt.” The land of Egypt had developed vegetable gardens, with an irrigation system connected to the Nile (Deut. 11:10; cf. Num. 11:5). The garden of the Lord, or the garden of Eden, was also such a place of fruitfulness, with rivers and fruit trees, especially the tree of life (Gen. 2:9–10).

The garden of Eden also carries various connotations that are developed in the rest of the Bible. It is a place secluded from the world, where nakedness is not shameful (Gen. 2:25). Song of Songs describes the garden as a place of perfect love. It is also a meeting place between God and human beings (Gen. 2:16–17; 3:8–14; cf. idolatrous gardens in Isa. 1:29–31; 65:3; 66:17). More important, God is the gardener who planted it (Gen. 2:8).

The metaphorical identification of God as the gardener is frequently developed in the OT. In Deut. 11:10–12 the land of Canaan is described as a garden that God himself will take care of. Isaiah presents Zion as the vineyard that God planted and cultivated but decided to destroy due to its unfruitfulness (Isa. 5:1–7; cf. Jer. 12:10; Ezek. 19:10; Joel 2:3); after the time of its desolation, however, God also promises to restore and care for it (Isa. 27:2–6). Restored Zion is likened to a well-watered garden and even the garden of Eden (Isa. 51:3; 58:11; 61:11; cf. Jer. 31:12; Ezek. 36:34–35; 47:12).

Descriptions of God as the gardener perhaps convey the conception of kingship. Gardens belonged to socially prestigious people, especially royalty, as indicated by the references to the king’s garden at Jerusalem (2 Kings 25:4; Jer. 39:4; 52:7; Neh. 3:15) as well as the Persian palace garden (Esther 1:5; 7:7–8). But a royal garden was particularly regarded as the main achievement of a king (Eccles. 2:4–6; also note the story of Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kings 21). The allusions to the garden of Eden in the taunt songs of the kings of Tyre, Assyria, and Pharaoh (Ezek. 28:13; 31:8–9, 16, 18) also support this relationship.

Metaphorical use of the garden continues in the NT. The people of God are described as the vegetation whose fruits reveal their identities (cf. Matt. 7:16–19). The need to bear fruit is particularly emphasized in the vineyard imagery of John 15, in which God is introduced as a farmer, Jesus as the vine, and believers as its branches. Paul mentions the bearing of fruit as the goal of Christian life (Rom. 7:4–5; Phil. 1:11; Col. 1:10), which is possible through the work of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22–25). Revelation 21:1–22:5 describes the new Jerusalem as a restored garden of Eden, in the midst of which a river of life, issuing from beneath God’s throne, provides abundant water for the tree of life on both sides.

Also noteworthy is the reference in the Gospel of John to the two gardens: the garden of Jesus’ arrest (18:1–11) and the garden of Jesus’ burial (19:41). Considering their location in Jerusalem and the usage of royal gardens for burial (cf. 2 Kings 21:18), it seems that John mentions the gardens in order to underline Jesus’ kingship, which he particularly develops in John 18–19. Mary’s perception of the risen Christ as a gardener possibly supports this interpretation (John 20:15).

Hall of Justice

Herod's Palace

Herod the Great (73–4 BC) built a number of palaces throughout his kingdom, including those in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Jericho, the Herodium, and Masada, but two play an important role in the NT. The only explicit NT mention of “Herod’s palace” (Acts 23:35) refers to the palace (or praetorium) built by Herod in Caesarea Maritima, which was used during the period of Acts as the headquarters of Roman governors in Judea. When Paul was rescued from a group of his Jewish opponents plotting to kill him (Acts 23:12–22), the governor Felix held Paul in Herod’s Palace until his Jewish accusers arrived from Jerusalem to charge him face-to-face (Acts 23:35).

Another of Herod’s palaces was the magnificent residence built to provide protection for the Upper City of Jerusalem. This palace consisted of two main buildings, each with banquet halls, baths, and accommodation for hundreds of guests. It was surrounded by groves, canals, ponds, and fountains. This palace became the official residence of the Roman governors who came to Jerusalem during the major Jewish festivals, and it is likely that Jesus’ Roman trial before Pilate took place here in the palace’s courtyard, or praetorium (Mark 15:16; cf. John 18:28, 33; 19:9). This is more likely than the traditional location at the Antonia Fortress overlooking the temple, since Pilate is unlikely to have been staying in the somewhat spartan barracks of Antonia.

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.

Last Supper

According to the Gospels and Paul, Jesus had a final meal with his closest followers the night before his crucifixion, which is remembered as the “Last Supper” (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–26; cf. John 13:1–30, which mentions the meal but describes and focuses on Jesus washing his disciples’ feet and elaborates on the betrayal by Judas Iscariot). The Synoptic and Pauline accounts of the meal fit into two distinct groups according to their representation in the NT: Matthew/Mark and Luke/1 Corinthians. The unique aspects of Luke/1 Corinthians include “do this in remembrance of me,” the “new covenant in my blood,” and “which is poured out for you.” Matthew/Mark include Jesus’ command to “take” the bread, his giving “thanks” before taking up the cup, and his referring to the cup as “my blood of the covenant” and his blood poured out for “many.”

Two further issues involve when this meal took place and whether it was a Passover meal. According to the Gospels, Jesus was crucified on a Friday (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31, 42). However, in the Synoptic Gospels the supper was a Passover meal (Matt. 26:17–19; Mark 14:12–16; Luke 22:7–15), but John 13:1, 29; 18:28; 19:31 imply that the trial and crucifixion took place before Passover. It may be that John is correct, and Jesus had a quasi-Passover meal ahead of the actual Passover because he knew that he would not live long enough to celebrate it. Or perhaps the Synoptics are correct, and John altered the chronology in order to have Jesus crucified on the same day the Passover lambs were sacrificed, thus making a theological point about Jesus as the Lamb of God. In any event, the meal was symbolic of the new exodus, the renewal of the covenant, and the atonement that Jesus would achieve through his death.

In the early church this commemorative meal became an integral part of the fellowship and worship of the first Christians. It was variously referred to as giving thanks (lit., “Eucharist,” [from the Greek word for “thanks”]) (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17, 19; 1 Cor. 11:24), “the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11), “communion” (1 Cor. 10:16 KJV), the “Lord’s table” (1 Cor. 10:21), the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20), and a “love feast” (Jude 12). See also Lord’s Supper.

Messiah

The English word “messiah” derives from the Hebrew verb mashakh, which means “to anoint.” The Greek counterpart of the Hebrew word for “messiah” (mashiakh) is christos, which in English is “Christ.”

Old Testament

In English translations of the Bible, the word “messiah” (“anointed one”) occurs rarely in the OT. In the OT, kings, prophets, and priests were “anointed” with oil as a means of consecrating or setting them apart for their respective offices. Prophets and priests anointed Israel’s kings (1 Sam. 16:1–13; 2 Sam. 2:4, 7). Samuel anointed Saul (1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 15:1) and David (1 Sam. 16:12–13). Later, Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest anointed Solomon, the successor of King David (1 Kings 1:34). The word “anoint” occurs even earlier, in the book of Judges, in a parable about Abimelek becoming king (Judg. 9:7–15). In 1–2 Samuel and Psalms the king is sometimes called “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 16:6; 24:6; 26:9; Pss. 2:2; 18:50; 20:6). The anointing of priests occurs very early in Israelite tradition, in which Aaron and his sons are consecrated for their priestly service (Exod. 28:41; 30:30). In Num. 35:25 the high priest is anointed with “holy oil.” Sacred objects for use in the tabernacle also were anointed (Exod. 29:36; 30:26; Lev. 8:10–11). As for the anointing of prophets, God commanded Elijah to anoint Elisha as his successor (1 Kings 19:16). The prophet Isaiah also claimed to be anointed for his work of proclamation (Isa. 61:1–2).

The expectation for a “messiah,” or “anointed one,” arose from the promise given to David in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7). David was promised that from his seed God would raise up a king who would reign forever on his throne. Hopes for such an ideal king began with Solomon and developed further during the decline (cf. Isa. 9:1–7) and especially after the collapse of the Davidic kingdom.

The harsh reality of exile prompted Israel to hope that God would rule in such a manner. A number of psalms reflect the desire that an ideal son of David would come and rule, delivering Israel from its current plight of oppression. Hence, in Ps. 2 God declares that his son (v. 7), who is the Lord’s anointed one (v. 2), will receive “the nations [as] your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession” (v. 8). God promises that “you will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery” (v. 9; see NIV footnote). In Ps. 89 the psalmist yearns for the establishment of David’s kingdom because God has been “very angry with your anointed one” (v. 38). Later, the psalmist pleads with God, “For the sake of your servant David, do not reject your anointed one” (Ps. 132:10). In the postexilic literature, Zerubbabel, for example, appears to be understood as a messianic figure. Speaking of Zerubbabel and Joshua, the angel says, “These are the two who are anointed to serve the Lord of all the earth” (Zech. 4:14).

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

In some apocalyptic literature a messiah-like figure ushers in God’s kingdom, overthrowing the current evil powers that oppress God’s people. In 1 Enoch the “son of man” (46.1–3) is an anointed figure (52.6) who will judge the kings and the mighty from his heavenly throne and will champion the cause of the faithful (46.4–8; 62.5). In 2 Baruch “my anointed” (39.7; 40.1) will reign over the remnant in a place chosen by God (40.2). Finally, in a nonapocalyptic Jewish text, Psalms of Solomon, the author expects deliverance from the Roman oppressors and the corrupt Hasmonean dynasty by the “Lord Messiah” (18.7): “See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel” (17.21). These texts confirm the diversity of first-century messianic expectations. Yet the most common hope centered on the “Davidic messiah,” the coming king from David’s line who would establish justice and righteousness and reign forever on David’s throne.

New Testament

Jesus demonstrates great reticence in using the title “Messiah.” In the Synoptic Gospels he almost never explicitly claims it. The two key Synoptic passages where Jesus accepts the title are themselves enigmatic. In Mark’s version of Peter’s confession (8:29), Jesus does not explicitly affirm Peter’s claim, “You are the Messiah,” but instead goes on to speak of the suffering of the Son of Man. Later, Jesus is asked by the high priest Caiaphas at his trial, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:60). In Mark 14:62, Jesus answers explicitly with “I am,” while in Matt. 26:64, he uses the more enigmatic “You have said so.” Jesus then goes on to describe himself as the exalted Son of Man who will sit at Yahweh’s right hand.

Jesus no doubt avoided the title because it risked communicating an inadequate understanding of the kingdom and his messianic role. Although the Messiah was never a purely political figure in Judaism, he was widely expected to destroy Israel’s enemies and secure its physical borders. Psalms of Solomon portrays the coming “son of David” as one who will “destroy the unrighteous rulers” and “purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trample her to destruction” (Pss. Sol. 17.21–23). To distance himself from such thinking, Jesus never refers to himself as “son of David” and “king of Israel/the Jews” as other characters do in the Gospels (Matt. 12:23; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47; 15:2; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:33). When Jesus was confronted by a group of Jews who wanted to make him into such a king, he resisted them (John 6:15).

In Mark 12:35–37, Jesus also redefines traditional understandings of the son of David in his short discussion on Ps. 110:1: he is something more than a mere human son of David. Combining Jesus’ implicit affirmation that he is the Messiah in Mark 8:30 with his teaching about the Son of Man in 8:31, we see that Jesus is a Messiah who will “suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law” (8:31) and through whom redemption will come (10:45). Jesus came not to defeat the Roman legions, but to bring victory over Satan, sin, and death.

In the book of Acts, Peter reaffirms the messiahship of Jesus at the conclusion of his sermon: “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah” (2:36 [cf. 5:42; 9:22]). Since it is now apparent that through suffering and death Jesus the Messiah would effect salvation, there is no risk of the Jews misunderstanding Christ’s messiahship. However, he is still a deliverer and savior like the Lord’s anointed of the OT, but he brings about this salvation through unexpected means (3:18–20). Further, Jesus is now the ascended and exalted messianic king in the style of Ps. 110:1 (cf. Acts 2:34–36), which he predicted during his earthly ministry (Mark 14:62). The reality of Jesus’ exalted messianic status is so pervasive in early Christian thinking that the title Christos becomes a synonym for “Jesus” or is used in combination with “Jesus.” And indeed, the earliest followers of Jesus after the resurrection become know as Christianoi (Acts 11:26).

Messias

Old Testament

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

New Testament

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

Preparation Day

All four Gospels refer to Preparation Day (paraskeuē) as the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. According to Mark 15:42, Preparation Day was “the day before the Sabbath,” meaning Friday (cf. Luke 23:54). By the end of the first century, paraskeuē had become a technical term meaning “Friday” (Did. 8.1; cf. Mart. Pol. 7.1). The precise referent of Preparation Day in John 19:14 is disputed, as the Greek phrase paraskeuē tou pascha has been translated as “the day of Preparation of the Passover” (NIV, ESV). John 19:31 states that Preparation Day was immediately followed by the Sabbath, which would place Jesus’ crucifixion on Friday and his final supper (John 13:2) on Passover Thursday (cf. Matt. 26:18). However, John 18:28 states that the Jewish leaders “wanted to be able to eat the Passover,” suggesting that Jesus was crucified on Passover. In this verse, “the Passover” (pascha) may refer to the continuing Feast of Unleavened Bread, or it may be that the Jews had prepared but not eaten the Passover by early the next morning. Regardless, the Gospels clearly record that Jesus was crucified on Friday, Preparation Day.

Sanhedrin

The Jewish ruling body in Jerusalem that played a part in Jesus’ execution and the persecution of the early church. The Greek word for this body, synedrion, often is translated as “council,” and in ancient sources other than the Bible the word does not denote one specific ruling authority but rather is used for many different city or regional councils. However, in the NT the word refers to the council in Jerusalem headed by the high priest that was charged by the Roman authorities with maintaining order among the Jewish people. According to Jewish tradition, Moses instituted the Sanhedrin at God’s prompting, so that its members might lead the nation as God’s anointed elders (see Num. 11:16–17). Further tradition says that Ezra called the Sanhedrin together again following the exile.

In the first century AD, the Sanhedrin functioned as the highest judicial authority of the nation of Israel (which sheds light on Matt. 5:22). The Sanhedrin contained members from the Sadducees and the Pharisees, along with other prominent members of the Jewish establishment. In the Gospel of Mark it is described as being made up of “the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders and the teachers of the law” (Mark 14:53). As the highest authority representing the religious establishment of Israel, the Sanhedrin under the high priest Caiaphas played a prominent role in the final conflict that led to Jesus’ crucifixion. John indicates that the Sanhedrin, and Caiaphas in particular, plotted to kill Jesus just after the raising of Lazarus from the dead (John 11:45–53). Caiaphas expressed the fear that the Sanhedrin’s authority would be usurped if Jesus continued to gain popularity through his miracles, and also that a messiah would trigger a backlash of oppression from the Roman rulers.

After Jesus was taken from the garden of Gethsemane, the Sanhedrin tried him on a charge of blasphemy using false testimony, and some of the Gospels also have the accusers claim that Jesus promised to destroy the temple and raise it in three days, taking his words as a literal threat against the temple (Matt. 26:58–68; Mark 14:53–65; Luke 22:63–71; see also John 18:13–27). The Sanhedrin was unable to carry out a sentence of death that the charge of blasphemy called for, however, and so they were forced to bring Jesus to the Roman authorities to achieve their desired result. When Jesus was brought before Pilate, they portrayed his crime as proclaiming himself to be the “King of the Jews,” thereby tailoring the charge to make him look like a revolutionary rather than a religious teacher with whom the Sanhedrin disagreed (Matt. 27:11–14; Mark 15:2–5; Luke 23:2–7; John 18:29–38). The man who arranged for the burial of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea, is said to be a member of “the Council” (Mark 15:43), but Luke is quick to mention that Joseph had “not consented to their decision or action” regarding Jesus’ fate (Luke 23:51).

Following the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Sanhedrin attempted to suppress the budding Christian movement by arresting Peter and John and having them beaten for preaching about Jesus (Acts 4:1–21). The Sanhedrin also ordered the apostles “not to speak in the name of Jesus” (5:40). Paul, after being arrested, was brought before the Sanhedrin so that they might determine his crime, and he cleverly used the disagreement between the Sadducees and the Pharisees regarding the resurrection of the dead to disrupt the assembly (23:1–9). They then plotted to kill him (23:12–22).

Senate

Separation of Church and State

Theft

Capital Crimes

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Trials and Judgments

Thief

Capital Crimes

The NT mentions an official or professional executioner (Mark 6:27). Paul declares that the authorities rightly derive the power of the sword from God (Rom. 13:4).

Punishments for Noncapital Crimes

Trials and Judgments

Tower of Antonia

The fortress was destroyed during Titus’s siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the modern site of the tower has yet to be determined conclusively.

Trial of Jesus

Prior to his crucifixion, Jesus was subject to a Jewish pretrial examination and a formal trial before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

In the Gospels the primary components of this judicial process are (1) a private inquiry made by Annas (John 18:13–24); (2) an examination before the Sanhedrin (Matt. 26:57–68 // Mark 14:53–65 // Luke 22:54–71); (3) a hearing before Pilate (Matt. 27:11–14 // Mark 15:2–5 // Luke 23:2–5 // John 18:29–38); (4) a hearing before Herod Antipas (Luke 23:6–16); and (5) Pilate’s verdict (Matt. 27:24–26 // Mark 15:15 // Luke 23:24–25 // John 19:16).

Reasons for Trial and Historicity

The reasons for the hastily devised trial are complex and are rooted in the particular socio-religious environment of Jerusalem at Passover. Jesus’ triumphal entry and his demonstration in the temple were provocative actions that implied his messianic authority. The Judean leadership was fearful that Jesus would create a furor when close to a million Jewish pilgrims were in the environs of Jerusalem at Passover. In this incendiary atmosphere a messianic claim could prompt riots and revolution and force the Roman authorities to intervene militarily, resulting in a reorganizing of authority among the Judean aristocracy (a fear verbalized in John 11:47–53).

The historicity of the trial is questioned on a number of fronts. Would the high priest really convene an emergency nocturnal session of the Sanhedrin to do away with Jesus? Perhaps so, if the situation was desperate enough! A nocturnal hearing would allow Jesus to be tried by the Roman authorities first thing in the morning and to have Jesus taken care of before most Jerusalemites and pilgrims were awake and aware of what was going on. Another primary objection is that there were no Christian witnesses present to relay accounts of the proceedings, especially the private hearings. But one can respond by suggesting that there was probably a desperate curiosity among Jesus’ followers and the crowds in general about what actually took place at the proceedings. Besides the fact that part of the trial took place in public, more information would have been available from attendants, guards, council members, and even from sympathizers with Jesus such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. No one was sworn to secrecy over what transpired. What seems certain is that Jesus had a pretrial hearing with the Sanhedrin and a formal trial before Pilate.

The Judicial Process

During the judicial processes a number of allegations were raised against Jesus. (1) Being a false prophet who was leading the nation astray (Matt. 27:63–64; Luke 23:2, 14). The background to this accusation derives from Deut. 13; 18, concerning false prophets and diviners who lead the nation into idolatry and make false prophecies. This charge is made explicit in the Babylonian Talmud: “Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover. . . . He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray” (b. Sanh. 43a [cf. 107b]). (2) Speaking against the temple (Matt. 26:61; Mark 14:58). What is “false” about the witnesses against Jesus is not that Jesus did not speak and act against the temple (see Matt. 23–24; Mark 13; Luke 21), but that their testimony did not agree and that they misunderstood Jesus to be saying that he would rebuild another temple of a kind similar to the first. (3) Forbidding the payment of taxes (Luke 23:2). (4) Blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God (Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:64). (5) Claiming to be the king of the Jews (Mark 15:2; John 18:33).

According to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus initially was led to Annas, at which time he was briefly interviewed about “his disciples and his teaching” (John 18:19). Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas and had been the high priest previously (AD 6–15). High priest evidently was a lifetime office, which is why Annas was still addressed as “high priest” (John 18:22–23).

Jesus again was led out, this time to Caiaphas the current high priest. At this point Jesus had a “night trial” before Caiaphas (an act of questionable legality, according to rabbinic law). The basic flow of events includes Caiaphas conducting a cross-examination of Jesus (Matt. 26:59–66; Mark 14:55–64; Luke 22:67–71; John 18:24), Jesus being beaten and abused by his captors (Matt. 26:67–68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63–65), and then the Sanhedrin convening at dawn to ratify the night proceedings against Jesus (Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66–71; John 18:28). During the proceedings a number of accusations were brought against Jesus, but the climax was Jesus’ response to the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven, which combines Dan. 7:13 with Ps. 110:1. The notion that Jesus would share the divine throne with God was deemed blasphemous by the high priest and settled and exceeded the messianic question put to Jesus. The participants of the proceedings condemned Jesus as “worthy of death” (Matt. 26:66; Mark 14:64).

The gathering of the Sanhedrin probably is not a second trial, but more likely it is for the purpose of ratifying the charges made against Jesus. The decision of the Sanhedrin was that Jesus be handed over to Pilate (Matt. 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1; John 18:28) for execution, as the Judean leadership did not have the right to exercise the death penalty without official approval (John 18:31). Since blasphemy was not a capital crime under Roman law, however, the delegation emphasized the political nature of Jesus’ message in order to secure the death penalty. Before Pilate, Jesus was charged with a number of offenses, including leading the nation astray, forbidding payment of taxes to Caesar, and claiming to be a king (cf. Luke 23:2). The main features of this segment of the proceedings are the following: (1) Jesus is charged with making kingly claims; (2) Pilate proposes to release Jesus to the Judean crowd as their king, but the crowd chooses Barabbas instead; (3) Jesus is handed over for execution, before which he is mocked and ruthlessly beaten by the Roman soldiers. In all accounts Pilate is portrayed as feeble and self-interested, and his apparent sympathy for Jesus was born out of his habitual opposition to the designs of the high priest.

From a theological perspective, the trial narratives demonstrate that the kingdom of God comes through the kingship of the crucified, and that Jesus is the Suffering Servant of Isa. 53, who was led like a lamb to the slaughter and pierced for our transgressions.

Showing 1 to 50 of57 results

1. The Weaver

Illustration

It had started as one play, produced by the high school students for a parish summer gathering. But the talents of that particular group were gaining attention - even outside the congregation. John had watched his spouse, the congregation's pastor, marvel at the imagination of the writers.

"You must come and see this production Sunday evening, John," said Karenza. And so he did.

The play was set in a single room. It was Pilate's headquarters where he had addressed Jesus about his kingly aspirations. The students had based the play primarily on the exchange of Jesus and Pilate but another subplot was added and it kept them all keenly attentive.

In a cottage near the soldiers' quarters sat a young soldier's widow. Only two weeks before her husband had died in a raid on one of the province's outlying areas. There had been a revolt against the soldiers in a Jewish village, her husband had fallen, striking his head against a well and had died.

The young woman wandered aimlessly around the small dwelling. When she reached the corner where her loom stood, she suddenly fell to the floor sobbing. She had woven a rich purple cloak for her husband. On his return she had planned to present it to him. She had anticipated his comments. He was very modest and gentle considering the fact that he had to do his stint for the Roman army. She knew he would demur at wearing such a rich-looking robe.

"Julia! This is too fine a cloak for me! This is what the wealthy and fine folks wear!"

And it was true. She had been given the materials by her aunt in Rome, a wealthy matron. Julia had stood over the baskets of fine wool reverentially. She knew what a beautiful piece could be fashioned from the gift. It would be a robe fit for a king and when she finished it she thought so herself.

As she listlessly dried her tears, she heard a knock on the door. It was her husband's friend, a fellow soldier.

"Julia!" he cried painfully, "I need your help! The soldiers are looking for a robe for some scoundrel in the prison. He thinks he's a king and so they thought they'd play along. We'll pay you for the robe you were working on. Please, help me. I'm in a fix. I'll get in trouble if I don't bring something back."

Julia looked at him listlessly. In a fit of despair she went to the loom and picked up the neatly folded robe and thrust it at him. "Take it. I have no use for it."

He smiled at her gratefully and ran out.

Early that afternoon as she stood on a crowded roadside, she found herself caught up in a mob urging crucifixion on the poor soul who bore the weight of a cross. She was stunned by the look he cast at her, one of compassion and knowledge and simultaneously by a woman following him. The woman was sobbing and in her arms she clutched the distinctive purple robe Julia had woven.

Julia knew that she must follow the woman and find out what this tumult was all about.

2. Jesus wins, Pilate loses.

Illustration

William R. Boyer

George III of England, America's enemy in the Revolutionary War, felt terrible about the loss of the colonies. It was said, in fact, that for the rest of his life, he could not say the word "independence" without tripping over it. He was an odd duck in many ways, but he had good insights. When the fighting in America stopped, King George and all his royal cronies in Europe were sure that George Washington would have himself crowned "Emperor of the New World." That's what they would have done. When he was told, on the contrary, that Washington planned to surrender his military commission and return to farming at Mt.Vernon, George III said, "Well, if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." There is power in giving up power, in emptying oneself. Jesus knew it, Pilate didn't.

3. The Last Word

Illustration

Steven E. Albertin

Have you ever been in a heated argument with someone and couldn't let the matter drop? You just had to continue making your point. Why? Because you had to have the last word.

If you have ever been in a classroom discussion, you have discovered the importance of that class reaching some sort of resolution and conclusion to the discussion. Students will often look to the teacher to settle the matter. The teacher has the last word.

If you ever watched Ted Koppel on the late night television show Nightline, you saw him struggle with trying to be fair in dealing with two or more opposing points of view. It is also obvious how important it is to have the last word on that show. The last one to speak always seems to have the most lasting impact.

To have the last word is to be the final authority. To have the last word is to have the most power. To have the last word means that you are in control, that you are the boss. Ask any coach, teacher, manager, CEO, or parent and they will tell you that having the last word is what they are all about.

However we might think that a king is an old-fashioned and irrelevant image for an authority figure for the late twentieth century (and that is probably accurate!), nevertheless, before we throw this day out of our liturgical calendar, we ought to get behind the historical cobwebs of a king and look instead at what the tradition of the church is really trying to communicate with this day of Christ the King.

Perhaps "King" isn't a helpful way to talk about Jesus in this day and age, but if we think of a king as someone who has the last word, who is the final authority and power in life, then celebrating Christ as King might begin to make more sense.

4. Then They Came For Me

Illustration

James R. Gorman

In difficult times, loyalty to Christ as King requires an unusual courage. In Nazi Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller stand out as church leaders and pastors who insisted that Christ is King and not Adolph Hitler. Niemoller understood that truth transcends Hitler's gifted political rhetoric and it also transcends his own particular condition. Reflecting on the war years in Germany, Martin Niemoller confessed his own hesitancy to be obedient to the Truth and the King of Kings by saying:

They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not object
Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist so I did not object.
Then they came for the Poles, but I was not a Pole, so I did not object.
Then they came for me. And there was no one left to object.

Christ is King and witnesses to the way of Truth. And the truth which we know in Jesus Christ is one that transcends political expediency and our own particular existential crises.

5. There Is a Time

Illustration

Mark Trotter

A pair of stories from Greece. Which, if not exactly around the corner from the Holy Land, is at least in the neighborhood. Actually, the first story takes place in Chania, at an airport on the west end of the island of Crete. On the particular day in question, an Olympia Airlines 727 is deplaning a group of 100 angry passengers into a crowded terminal. Pandemonium follows. Voices are raised, followed by fists. Women and children are wailing. Someone threatens to leap over the counter to punch the agent. Police appear, billy clubs at the ready.

What has happened is this. The passengers were all destined for Heraklion at the other end of the island. Indeed, their luggage has already gone there on another plane. For reasons unclear, this Olympia Airlines 727 has landed at the wrong city and is now scheduled to fly elsewhere. What is left for the hundred passengers is a hard ride by bus, 150 miles to their destination. The passengers want blood. The hot-headed ones talk about commandeering a plane. Others make threats against the management of Olympia Airlines, complete with comments about management's ancestry on their mother's side.

Suddenly, a well-dressed German tourist who, heretofore, has been pacing in small circles on the rim of the chaos, begins to shout at no one in particular:

Why am I here?
Where am I going?
What must I do?
What will become of me?
God in heaven, help me!

His cry is sufficiently frenzied so as to quiet all other chaos, as fellow travelers back cautiously away from him as if he were a mad dog in their midst.

Suddenly a representative of Olympia Airlines steps forward to address him. "Excuse me, sir," he says, "but you have asked some very old questions. We Greeks have been working on those questions for over two thousand years. They are not easy to answer, then or now. In the meantime, I do not know what help God in heaven may be. But we of Olympia Airlines will see to it that you get to Heraklion. So if you please, sir, get on the bus."

Moral of story: To everything there is a season, a time to fly, a time to cry, a time to shout, and a time to ask philosophical questions. But there is also a time to get on the bus.

Story #2

Story number two takes place in a sidewalk café in the Greek seacoast where two young Americans are arguing about whether human beings are basically bad or basically good. The animation of the conversation becomes even more understandable when I tell you that the two Americans are law students. First year law students. Having lived with one of those, I know that young lawyers cut their academic teeth on argumentation. They will debate anything, with anybody, at any time. And should they convince you that their position is right and yours is wrong, they will then switch sides and argue yours, just for the fun of it.

In the middle of the argument, one of the students points to his glass of wine and suggests (sagely) that pondering whether human beings are basically bad or basically good is like trying to solve the riddle as to whether a wine glass is half empty or half full, in other words, a matter of perception.

His companion disagrees. "Not so," he says. "We can precisely calculate the amount of wine in a given glass at a given time, provided that proper definitions of ‘empty' and ‘full' can be agreed upon in advance." So they motion for the waiter and inquire as to whether the café as any instruments with which to measure and calculate.

The waiter, an old Greek wise in the ways of first year law students, asks the purpose of such a request, and is told that such measuring devices are needed to solve the question as to whether this particular wine glass is half empty or half full. The waiter looks at the two young men. Then he looks at the wine. Following which he smiles, picks up the glass, swirls the contents, sniffs the aroma, and (with nary a word to anyone) drinks it down with great relish and walks away.

Moral of story: Among the seasons listed earlier, there is a time to debate, and a time to drink the wine.

6. What Pilate Believes

Illustration

Brian Stoffregen

In the NIV, the first part of v. 37 is a declaration by Pilate: "You are a king, then!" In the NRSV (and my Greek text) it is a question: "So you are a king?"

In some ways, this is another wrong question. Jesus turns it around: "You are saying that I am a king." With that statement is Jesus again putting Pilate on trial: "You have said it, but is it what you believe?"

Here is a story that illustrates what is going on in this dialogue between Jesus and Pilate: An Amish man was once asked by an enthusiastic young evangelist whether he had been saved, and whether he had accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior? The gentleman replied, "Why do you ask me such a thing? I could tell you anything. Here are the names of my banker, my grocer, and my farm hands. Ask them if I've been saved."

Jesus could tell Pilate anything. What is important is what Pilate believes.

7. Ordinary People

Illustration

Brett Blair & John C. Purdy

In the story of the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus we do not have a rascally, villainous cast of characters. We have ordinary soldiers, policemen, officials, priests, magistrates, and citizens - all doing what soldiers, police, officials, priests, and zealous citizens do every day. It is the usual "morality play," with a suspected criminal, arresting officers, prosecutors, a trial, and sentencing. With the exception of Jesus, none of the actors appear to be sterling characters. They are ordinary human beings, with a fair measure of hypocrisy and callousness. But each carries out with fidelity the role that society has assigned to him or her.

All of it tends to make the assassination of Jesus pointless. The great passion play we know it to be wasn't even close to being on the minds of the people involved in the process, Even the disciples think that Jesus was a would be political king that failed. But isn't that life. So often we fail to see the great movements of history until they are over and we analyse what's happened and why.

8. What Kind of a Kingdom has Jesus?

Illustration

Andrew Daughters

What kind of a Kingdom has Jesus? No castle nor palace has he. No congress nor parliament sitting, deciding what laws there will be. Perhaps he has need of but two laws: Love God and your neighbor as well. To obey them is all that is needed, as all of the saintly can tell.

He has neither army nor navy, no air force to guard the frontiers to keep out the strangers unwanted and maintain the enemy's fears. Immigration he seems to encourage, of some quite disreputable, like fishermen, publicans, sinners. To such he is hospitable.

It seems there's no revenue service or taxes we must calculate. He surely cannot run a kingdom on what we put into the plate! No 1040 form comes in April to fill out before the fifteenth, with penalties charged for nonpayment, beginning upon the sixteenth.

No currency's here with his picture, no coinage engraved with his name. And where are the posters and slogans proclaiming his power and fame? And I see no trappings of kingship, no robes made of velvet and fur, no crown made of gold set with diamonds, to befit our supreme arbiter.

Jesus said that his kingdom was really not what Pilate had thought it had been. It was not of this world. And its glory was not of the kind to be seen. For those of us here in his kingdom, there is one other thing we have known: of the kingdoms around in his lifetime, it's the only one left with a throne.

9. Open Talk about Truth

Illustration

Will Willimon

It frightens us to hear such open talk about truth. We are more concerned with how to live in a world where there is a plurality of truths—and with how to do so without killing each other—than we are with truth. Pilate himself was trying to deal with this problem of pluralism. It was difficult enough keeping Jews in their place—with their Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes—without a young Nazarene claiming to be the truth. Pilate’s response to Jesus’ claim was to try to get him into a philosophical discussion about truth. And then, when this rabbi refused to enter the discussion—refused to be rational—he had him killed.

I’m not sure that we’ve gotten much beyond Pilate in handling pluralism. We are heirs to the liberal theological enterprise which assumes that there is some universal experience that can be characterized as "religious." The plurality of religions, the liberal assumes, is the varied expression of a universal human experience. We shouldn’t be too dismayed by the wide array of religious expressions in our society, according to this view, for the basic experience behind them transcends their particular expressions. But if we encounter an expression that is contrary to whatever we have defined as the "basic religious experience"— as happens, say, when a devotee of Campus Crusade tells a Mormon that she is going to hell—we dismiss this perspective as an unreasonable aberration, an inadequate expression of our basic religious aspirations. The liberal, despite his or her claims of openness, is really quite imperialistic in insisting that all religions be evaluated on the basis of some allegedly universal criteria.

10. We Hold These Truths to Be Self-evident

Illustration

John A. Dane

I don’t know who first uttered these words but they set forth a terribly important bit of wisdom: If there is nothing above us we will be consumed by all that is around us.

Our nation’s Founding Fathers recognized its truth when they wrote: "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."

Our human dignity, rights and freedoms come to us not from our President, our Congress or our Supreme Court, they come to us from God our Creator. No king, ruler, president or potentate confers them upon us. Perhaps that concept does not seem to be very bold to us today, but it was the foundation of our Declaration of Independence, the beginning of what back then was known as the American Experiment. Experiment? Yes! What our Founding Fathers asserted back then was radical because the people in the rest of our world were governed back then by kings, dictators and totalitarians who ruled as if people were their possessions, as if their subjects belonged to them and not to God.

11. 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.

12. Does Truth Matter?

Illustration

Brett Blair

George Orwell wrote in Time and Tide, 6 April 1940: "Reading Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge's brilliant and depressing book, The Thirties, I thought of a rather cruel trick I once played on a wasp. He was sucking jam on my plate, and I cut him in half. He paid no attention, merely went on with his meal, while a tiny stream of jam trickled out of his severed esophagus. Only when he tried to fly away did he grasp the dreadful thing that had happened to him. It is the same with modern man. The thing that has been cut away is his soul, and there was a period - twenty years, perhaps - during which he did not notice it."

It seems that Pilate cannot grasp the dreadful thing that is happening around him. Neither can the Jews. He asks, "What is truth?" Indeed, is it so hard to discern truth when you are putting to death an innocent man and letting a murderer go free?

13. Kingdoms in Conflict - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Perhaps you have heard this story. It's a great story: Many years ago, when Hitler's forces occupied Denmark, the order came that all Jews in Denmark were to identify themselves by wearing armbands with yellow stars of David. The Danes had seen the extermination of Jews in other countries and guessed that this was the first step in that process in their countries. The King did not defy the orders. He had every Jew wear the star and he himself wore the Star of David. He told his people that he expected every loyal Dane to do the same. The King said, "We are all Danes. One Danish person is the same as the next." He wore his yellow star when going into Copenhagen every day in order to encourage his people. The King of Denmark identified with his people, even to the point of putting his own life on the line.

It's a wonderful story with a powerful point. The only problem is it isn't true. It's an urban legend. It's been around for a long time and told thousands of times over. And now with the internet we are getting a lot of these legendary stories retold. Too bad! What an image for a king, identifying with his people.

"Are you the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked. "Is that your idea," Jesus said to him, "or did others talk to you about me?" That's how these legends get started. Other people talking about what other people have said. Jesus was essentially crucified on gossip and rumor. An urban legend had developed around his ministry that he was going to lead a revolt against Rome.

In his conversation with Pilate, Jesus finally does imply that he is a king. "My kingdom," he explains, "is not of this world." Not of this world. That's what it takes. That's what it takes to find a King who identifies with his people. A King of heaven, a King of kings from some place other than this world.

Pilate and Jesus. Kingdoms in conflict. There are great lessons found in the tension between these two. Let's take a look at...

1. The Kingdoms of this World.
2. The Kingdom not of this World.
3. And the Truth we learn from the conflict of the two.

14. Part of the Ritual

Illustration

Brett Blair

The story is told about the baptism of King Aengus by St. Patrick in the middle of the fifth century. Sometime during the rite, St. Patrick leaned on his sharp-pointed staff and inadvertently stabbed the king's foot. After the baptism was over, St. Patrick looked down at all the blood, realized what he had done, and begged the king's forgiveness. Why did you suffer this pain in silence, the Saint wanted to know. The king replied, "I thought it was part of the ritual."

I am here to tell you that your king was stabbed in the foot . . . and the hand, and the side and the head and that WAS part of the ritual. And, you and I are the ones who held the staff. I ask you. Will you beg the King's forgiveness?

15. Freedom Riders

Illustration

Steven E. Albertin

A story has been told about the experiences of the Freedom Riders in the American South during the '50s and '60s and their struggle for civil rights. The story was a vivid illustration of how life changes when Jesus has the last word, when Jesus is King.

When the Freedom Riders traveled through the South staging their sit-ins and marches and protests, they were often arrested and jailed. The guardians of racial segregation and the status quo were not going to let them have the last word. While in jail the Freedom Riders were often treated poorly and brutally in order to break their spirits. They were deprived of food or given lousy food. Noise was blasted and lights were flashed all day and night to keep them from resting. Sometimes even some of their mattresses were removed in order that all would not have a place to sleep.

For a while it seemed to work. Their spirits were drained and discouraged, but never broken. It happened more than once and in more than one jail. Eventually the jail would begin to rock and swing to sounds of gospel singing. What began as a few weak voices would grow into a thundering and defiant chorus. The Freedom Riders would sing of their faith and their freedom. Sometimes they would even press their remaining mattresses out of their cells between the bars as they shouted, "You can take our mattresses, but you can't take our souls!"

The Freedom Riders were behind bars in jail, but they were really free. They were supposed to be guilty, but they were really innocent. They were supposedly suffering, but they were actually having a great time. They were supposedly defeated but they were actually victorious.

Why? They may not have said it, but they could have: because Jesus has the last word, because Christ is King!

16. Making Your Mark

Illustration

King Duncan

A legend during the classic time of Greece tells of a terrible thing happened in one of the temples. One night the statue of Zeus was mysteriously smashed and desecrated. A tremendous uproar arose among the inhabitants. They feared the vengeance of the gods. The town crier walked the city streets commanding the criminal to appear without delay before the Elders to receive his just punishment.

The perpetrator naturally had no desire to give himself up. In fact, a week later another statue of a god was destroyed. Now the people suspected that a madman was loose. Guards were posted. At last their vigilance was rewarded; the culprit was caught. He was asked, "Do you know what fate awaits you?"

"Yes," he answered, almost cheerfully. "Death."

"Aren't you afraid to die?"

"Yes, I am." he answered.

"Then why did you commit a crime which you knew was punishable by death?" they asked.

The man swallowed hard and then answered, "I am a nobody. All my life I've been a nobody. I've never done anything to distinguish myself and I knew I never would. I wanted to do something to make people notice me...and remember me." The need to be recognized, to be appreciated, to have people know your name can carry a tragic price tag.

Note: We could not find any ancient renditions of this event so we have marked this legend.

17. Judgment and Grace

Illustration

At first it is hard to comprehend that Dr. Karl Menninger wrote both The Crime of Punishment and Whatever Became of Sin? The two books appear to be diametrically opposed. The one emphasizes that we must take Sin seriously while the other denounces the "philosophy of punishment" as obsolete, vengeful and itself criminal. But the two books are not contradictory. An emphasis on a gracious attitude of forgiveness, redemption and rehabilitation does not mean that we naively ignore sin and evil. Menninger writes that in place of the vengeful philosophy of punishment we should "seek a comprehensive, constructive social attitude - therapeutic in some instances, restraining in some instances, but preventative in its total social impact." He is calling for a paradoxical combination of judgment and grace.

18. The Worst Crime

Illustration

Brett Blair

The famous British professor from a century ago Alfred Momerie says that it has often been concluded that murder is the worst crime. "But this will not do. He (the murderer) is generally executed for his crime and that is the end of him. But the sins of the temper and of speech and of thought, the sins of unkindness, or unneighborliness, are sins that we can go on committing without fear of punishment, every day, every hour, every moment. The amount of suffering, therefore, which can be inflicted by them is practically infinite."

The Professor goes on to ask the question: "Which has caused the greater amount of human misery theft or irritability? Suppose that a member of your family, with whom you are compelled to live, is incessantly annoying, incessantly torturing you by his moroseness, by his fits of rage will you say that this man who has made your home a veritable hell is more righteous than the man who steals from your purse?" Momerie goes on to conclude that the world has suffered infinitely greater by those who are guilty of the sins of temperament which arise ultimately from the sin of pride.

Perhaps this is Jesus' meaning when he said that hatred of the heart is the same as murder with the hand (Matthew 5).

19. Humor: You Scared the Living Daylights Out of Me

Illustration

Billy D. Strayhorn

There was a guy riding in a cab one day. He was new to the city and was looking for a good place to eat, so he leaned forward, tapped the cabby on the shoulder and said, "Hey, Buddy." The driver let out a blood curdling scream and lost control of the cab. He nearly hit a bus, jumped the curb and stopped just inches from going through a huge plate-glass window and into a crowded restaurant.

For a few minutes, there was dead silence in the cab. All you could hear was two hearts beating like bass drums pounding out a quick march. The driver finally turned around and said, "Man, you scared the living daylights out of me."

The passenger, who was white as a sheet and whose eyes were as big as dinner plates, said, "I'm sorry, I didn't realize tapping you on the shoulder would scare you so badly."

The cabby said, "Well, it's not your fault. This is my first day driving a cab. But for the last 25 years, I drove a hearse."

20. What Might Have Been

Illustration

Joeseph Stowell

A Brief Biography: He was 25 and had already captured the hearts of Russia with his novel Poor Folk. Fame quickly went to his head. He drank immoderately and partied wildly. He carelessly criticized the Czarist regime. You don't that in Czarist Russia. He was arrested in St. Petersburg and sentenced to death by the firing squad along with several other dissidents. It was a cold December morning. Dressed in a white execution gown, he was led to the wall of the prison courtyard with the others. Blindfolded, he waited for the last sound he would hear, the crack of a pistol echoing off the prison walls. Instead he heard fast paced footsteps; then the announcement that the Czar had commuted his sentence to ten years of hard labor. So intense was that moment that he suffered an epileptic seizure, something he would live with the rest of his life.

In that Siberian prison Fyodor Dostoevsky was allowed only a New Testament to read. There he discovered something more wonderful, more true than his socialistic ideals. He met Christ, and his heart was changed. Upon leaving prison he wrote to a friend who had helped him grow in Christ, "To believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more profound, more sympathetic, more reasonable, more manly and more perfect than Christ. And not only is there nothing but I tell myself with jealous love that there can be nothing. Besides, if anyone proved to me that Christ was outside the truth and it really was so that the truth was outside Christ, then I would prefer to remain with Christ, than with the truth."

Dostoevsky returned to civilian life. He wrote feverishly and produced his prison memories, The House of the Dead, and then Crime and Punishment, followed by many other major works. Yet his church attendance was sporadic, and he never grew as a Christian. He neglected Bible study and the fellowship of other believers. No Christian took him under his wing to disciple him. He began to drink. He gambled. Excessive drinking and compulsive gambling unraveled his life so that he died penniless and wasted. He left prison with his flame lit for Christ and died with nothing more than smoldering embers. Now I don't want to minimize the hardships of Russian prisons, which were then beyond man's ability to endure, but the tragedy of Fyodor Dostoevsky is not so much what he became but what more he could have become for Christ. In the words of the poet, "of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'It might have been.'"

21. Innocent Ignorance

Illustration

Oswald Chambers

We begin by trusting our ignorance and calling it innocence, and by trusting our innocence and calling it purity. And when we hear these rugged statements of our Lord's (Matthew 15:18), we shrink and say:

"But I never felt any of those awful things in my heart." Either Jesus Christ is the supreme authority on the human heart or He is not worth paying attention to. Am I prepared to trust His judgment or do I prefer to trust my innocent ignorance? As long as I remain under the refuge of innocence, I am living in a fool's paradise. The only thing that safeguards is the redemption found in Jesus Christ. Purity is too deep down for me to get to naturally; but when the Holy Spirit comes in, He brings into the center of my life the very Spirit that was manifested in the life of Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit, who is unsullied purity."

22. Do You Remember?

Illustration

Harry Emerson Fosdick

Anatole France, the french novelist who won the Nobel Peace prize in 1921, wrote a story in which Pilate and a friend, long years afterward talking about Palestine and their experiences there. They talked about the strange characters they had met and the dancing girls they had known, to the tumultuous history in which they had played a part. Then Pilate’s friend casually asked him whether he remembered Jesus of Nazareth, who had been crucified. Pilate knit his brows in vain. “Jesus,” he murmured, “Jesus of Nazareth? I cannot call him to mind.”

That day’s work was a forgotten incident in the political game.

23. The Apostles' Creed

Illustration

Staff

The earliest known mention of the expression "Apostles' Creed" occurs in a letter of AD 390 from a synod in Milan. The most traditional version of the creed is as follows:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
      and born of the virgin Mary.
      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried;
      he descended to hell.
      The third day he rose again from the dead.
      He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the holy catholic* church,
      the communion of saints,
      the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body,
      and the life everlasting. Amen.

*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places

The Old Roman Symbol (Latin: vetus symbolum romanum), or Old Roman Creed, is an earlier and shorter version of the Apostles’ Creed. It was based on the 2nd-century Rule of Faith and the interrogatory declaration of faith for those receiving Baptism. It is said that this earlier and first adopted version was based on the Trinitarian formula found in The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19. It was widely accepted in the 4th century, that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, each of the Twelve Apostles contributed an article to the twelve articles of this creed:

I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
(the life everlasting)

The Apostles' Creed (100 A.D.) is the oldest and shortest creed with only 109 words in the traditional version. Only the New Testament creed, "Jesus is Lord," is older. It is also the most often used -- practically every Sunday, except for festivals and seasons when the Nicene Creed is confessed. Undoubtedly, it is the most universal statement of the Christian faith.

By 100 A.D. the Apostles' Creed became the basic statement of faith for the church. In the first century, it was the rule of faith for baptismal candidates. In 390 it became known as the Apostles' Creed, even though it was not written by the apostles but contained the beliefs of the apostles. An ancient legend has it that after Pentecost the apostles agreed on a summary of what they were going to preach. The summary was the Apostles' Creed. Yet, the creed did not reach its final form until the sixth or seventh century. Martin Luther held this creed in such high regard that he used it in his Small Catechism to teach families what a Christian believes. To this day the Small Catechism is used as the basis for youth and adult preparation for church membership in Lutheran churches.

24. The Donkey's Owner

Illustration

Bruce Prewer

Many poets have tried to capture the profound tension. One attempt which speaks to me is in Clive Sansom’s poem, “The Donkey’s Owner,” in which he compares the pompous entry of Pilate to Jerusalem one day followed by the arrival of Jesus the next morning. (It is best read it with a working man’s accent like you might hear in the pub at outback Menindee or at ‘Young and Jackson’s’ in Melbourne):

THE DONKEY’S OWNER
Snaffled my donkey, he did --- good luck to him!
Rode him astride, feet dangling, near scraping the ground
Gave me the laugh of my life when I first saw him,
Remembering yesterday --- you know, how Pilate come
Bouncing the same road, on that horse of his
Big as a house and the armour shining
And half of Rome trotting behind him. Tight mouthed he was
Looking as if he owned the world.
Then today,
Him and my little donkey! Ha! Laugh ---?
I thought I’d kill myself when he first started.
So did the rest of them. Gave him a cheer
Like he was Caesar himself, only more hearty:
Tore off some palm twigs and followed shouting,
Whacking the donkey’s behind . . .
Then suddenly
We see his face.
The smile had gone, and somehow the way he sat
Was different --- like he was much older --- you know ---
Didn’t want to laugh no more.

Powerful stuff. At first the donkey’s owner thinks it’s a just a laugh, but when he sees the face of Jesus, something profound spears at his heart: “Didn’t want to laugh no more.”

25. Wait. Trust Me.

Illustration

Paul Batura

A friend earlier today called my attention to some counsel and perspective served up on an episode of The Andy Griffith Show titled, “Opie’s Hobo Friend.” It originally aired November 13, 1961. [It’s politically incorrect these days to refer to a homeless person as a “hobo” – but that wasn’t the case back when John F. Kennedy was in the White House.]

As the storyline goes, a homeless man named David Browne shows up in Mayberry. He swipes some sandwiches, makes friend with Sheriff Andy Taylor (played by Griffith) and by extension, Opie, Griffith’s son. Deputy Barney Fife is suspicious of Browne, but Andy gives the traveler benefit of the doubt. Soon, though, things begin to change.

Opie becomes enamored with the man, impressed how he can eat well and live such a carefree existence without a job. His young and impressionable mind is spinning. Of course, Opie’s innocence and lack of discernment prevent him from seeing through the facade and the man’s dishonesty.

The sheriff gently confronts the man:

David Browne: You know, I’ve grown awful fond of that young fellow. What’s wrong?
Sheriff Taylor: Well, there seems to be something wrong with his thinkin’. He’s gotten a little twisted on things lately, like bein’ able to tell the difference between right and wrong.
David Browne: Oh.
Sheriff Taylor: Not that that’s an easy thing. A lot of grownups still strugglin’ with that same problem, but ‘specially difficult for a youngster, ’cause things rub off on ’em so easy.
David Browne: Well, Sheriff, maybe I do look at things differently than other people. Is that wrong? I live by my wits. I’m not above bending the law now and then to keep clothes on my back or food in my stomach. I live the kind of life that other people would just love to live if they only had the courage. Who’s to say that the boy would be happier your way or mine? Why not let him decide?
Sheriff Taylor: Nah, I’m afraid it don’t work that way. You can’t let a young ‘un decide for himself. He’ll grab at the first flashy thing with shiny ribbons on it, then when he finds out there’s a hook in it, it’s too late. The wrong ideas come packaged with so much glitter, it’s hard to convince him that other things might be better in the long run and all a parent can do is say, “Wait. Trust me” and try to keep temptation away.

Wrong ideas packaged with glitter continue to entice and tempt not only children, but plenty of adults, too.

Today’s parents are in a battle against those who, instead of allowing mothers and fathers to say, “Wait. Trust me,” are saying, “Go ahead. Trust us.”

We’d be better off with a world full of more Sheriff Andy Taylors.

26. Let Loose

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

In the drama The Trial of Jesus, John Masefield has the centurion Longinus report to Pilate after the crucifixion of Jesus. Longinus had been the officer in charge of the execution, and after his official report, Procula, Pilate's wife calls the centurion to come and tell her how the prisoner had died. Once the account is given, she asks, "Do you think he is dead?"

Longinus answers, "No, lady, I don't."

"Then, where is he?" asks Procula.

Longinus replies, "Let loose in the world, lady, where neither Roman nor Jew can stop his truth."

27. In and Out of Favor

Illustration

How quickly the opinion of crowd can change (cf. Acts 14:8-19). Amazingly, these were the same people who, moments ago, "were speaking well of Him". Fast forward three years and we witness another extreme shift in attitude during Jesus' last week of ministry. "Hosanna" (an expression of adoration to God) would swiftly turn into the deadly cries of "Crucify Him!"

Sonny Jurgenson (former QB for the Washington Redskins) was being interviewed by a reporter after winning a game and then losing the next. The reporter asked him, "Don't you ever tire of the yo-yo nature of the press?"

He said, "Nah, I've been around long enough to know that each week you are either in the penthouse or the outhouse."

28. River of Disappointment

Illustration

King Duncan

Can you imagine the disappointment Jesus felt as he looked into the faces of people around him that first holy week? Can you imagine his disappointment with the crowds who would shout hosanna one moment and crucify him the next? Disappointment with his disciples--one of whom would betray him, his most trusted who would deny him, and the three closest to him who could not even stay awake on the job while he agonized over the cup the Father had set before him. Can you imagine the hurt he felt within?

Sir Alexander Mackenzie is a Canadian hero. An early fur trader and explorer, he accomplished a magnificent feat when he led an expedition across Canada from Fort Chipewyan on Lake Athabasca to the Pacific Ocean. His incredible journey was completed in 1793, 11 years before Lewis and Clark began their famous expedition to the west. Mackenzie's earlier attempt in 1789, however, had been a major disappointment. His explorers had set out in an effort to find a water route to the Pacific. The valiant group followed a mighty river (now named the Mackenzie) with high hopes, paddling furiously amid great danger. Unfortunately, it didn't empty into the Pacific, but into the Arctic Ocean. In his diary, Mackenzie called it the "River of Disappointment."

Jesus was now face-to-face with his River of Disappointment. He knew it would end like this, but still it is hard to stifle the will to believe, the hope that things will turn out better than expected.

29. Selling Yourself As A Slave

Illustration

Michael P. Green

Well before Paul was born, there had been a Roman law stating that no freeborn man could be enslaved. Therefore, a man could literally sell himself into slavery, collect the proceeds, then have a friend come and attest to his status as a freeborn man, and he would have to be released at once. This caused havoc with the Roman economy, which was well oiled by its slave labor. Therefore, just before Paul’s day, a new law was enacted whereby any man who sold himself into slavery could no longer claim free status later. The law could no longer help him. It was therefore clear to Paul’s readers in Rome that “to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, his slave you are.”

30. Answering Criticism

Illustration

Kent Moorehead

Think of the things that were said about Lincoln by his contemporaries - the calumnies, the caricatures, the unjust criticisms. But consider the accurate estimate of his style today. With what insight he wrote, when he said, "If I were to try to read, must less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, then angels swearing I was right would make no difference.

So with reference to Jesus, I myself am enormously grateful that I have some 2,000 years' vantage from which to view him. Had I lived back in his day, I hate to think how I might have misjudged him, considered him merely a disturber, a revolutionary, at very least a subversive influence. Who knows, I might have been just such a smug, ecclesiastically conditioned defender of the status quo as old Caiaphas himself. Seeing the upstart peasant stirring up the people, and hearing of his traitorous threats to destroy the Temple, I might have taken the same attitude he did. Believing that something had to be done to thwart his growing power, I might have concurred, too, in that famous, callous contention that, "it was expedient that one man should die for the people." I might even have been shouting with the mob, "Crucify him!"

31. In and Out of Favor

Illustration

Sonny Jurgenson (former QB for the Washington Redskins) was being interviewed by a reporter after winning a game and the losing the next. The reporter asked him, "don't you ever tire of the yo-yo nature of the press?" He said, "Nah, I've been around long enough to know that each week you are either in the penthouse or the outhouse."

32. Debts in Roman Society

Illustration

James R. Davis

In the ancient world cruel treatment was practiced against debtors, often without regard to the debtor's ability or intention to repay. In Athens prior to the establishment of democratic rights, a creditor could demand slave labor of his debtor or of members of the debtor's family as surety of payment.

Roman law provided punishment by imprisonment to the debtors. The reason for imprisonment and cruel treatment was to force the debtor to sell whatever property he might secretly own, or to have the debtor's relatives pay his debt.

The creditor would demand slave labor of the entire family so that the debt might be worked off. There were legal restrictions to prevent extreme cruelty, but in spite of the laws the entire system of debts and sureties was recklessly abused in the ancient world.

The prophets frequently condemned violations of the laws.

33. Why Did The Cheering Stop? - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Some years ago a book was written by a noted American historian entitled “When The Cheering Stopped.” It was the story of President Woodrow Wilson and the events leading up to and following WWI. When that war was over Wilson was an international hero, There was a great spirit of optimism abroad, and people actually believed that the last war had been fought and the world had been made safe for democracy.

On his first visit to Paris after the war Wilson was greeted by cheering mobs. He was actually more popular than their own heroes. The same thing was true in England and Italy. In a Vienna hospital a Red Cross worker had to tell the children that there would be no Christmas presents because of the war and the hard times. The children didn’t believe her. They said that President Wilson was coming and they knew that everything would be alright.

The cheering lasted about a year. Then it gradually began to stop. It turned out that after the war the political leaders in Europe were more concerned with their own agendas than they were a lasting peace. At home Woodrow Wilson ran into opposition in the United States Senate and his League of Nations was not ratified. Under the strain of it all the President’s health began to break. He suffered a stroke and in the next election his party was defeated. So it was that Woodrow Wilson, a man who barely a year earlier had been heralded as the new world Messiah, came to the end of his days a broken and defeated man.

It’s a sad story, but one that is not altogether unfamiliar. The ultimate reward for someone who tries to translate ideals into reality is apt to be frustration and defeat. There are some exceptions, of course, but not too many.

It happened that way to Jesus. When he emerged on the public scene he was an overnight sensation. He would try to go off to be alone and the people would still follow him. The masses lined the streets as he came into town. On Palm Sunday leafy palm branches were spread before him and there were shouts of Hosanna. In shouting Hosanna they were in effect saying “Save us now” Jesus. Great crowds came to hear him preach. A wave of religious expectation swept the country.

But the cheering did not last for long. There came a point when the tide began to turn against him. Oh, you didn’t notice it so much at first. People still came to see him, but the old excitement was missing, and the crowds were not as large as they had been. His critics now began to publicly attack him. That was something new. Earlier they had been afraid to speak out for fear of the masses, but they began to perceive that the fickle public was turning on him. Soon the opposition began to snowball. When they discovered that they could not discredit his moral character, they began to take more desperate measures. Before it was all over a tidal wave welled up that brought Jesus to his knees under the weight of a cross.

Why did the masses so radically turn against him? How did the shouts of Hosanna on Sunday transform into the shouts of crucify him on Friday? I am not just talking about the immediate events that may have brought it about, but the deeper root causes. What were the underlying issues? In five days it all fell apart. Why? That is the issue that I would like for us to concentrate on this morning. Why did the cheering stop?

1. Jesus Began to talk more and more about commitment.
2. Jesus dared to suggest that all people are worth loving.
3. Jesus began to talk more and more about a cross.

34. The Beginnings of a Spiritual Journey

Illustration

George Hermanson

One of my sources of my spiritual grounding is the blues. Van Morrison's Hymns to the Silence has become the sound track of my soul. It floats around me and catches me in moments of solitude. It speaks to me of my journey, the things that have made me, the yearning for depth in prayer. It reflects a nostalgia for the innocence of youth, time that is gone, and a longing for a safe place to be ... the thirst for God. There is a spirit of rejuvenation and rebirth in Morrison's blues - there is no us and them. He sings.' No matter where I roam / I will find my way back home / I will return to the Lord."

The point of the song is an old one - "know yourself." The beginning of deep spiritual examination begins here. This is not a beating oneself up, but a prayer of have mercy on me. It is a modest understanding of oneself - that I need others to be more fully myself. I don't have to go it alone.

35. Loved Him First

Illustration

Source Unknown

Josephus, a first century non-Christian historian, wrote: “Now there was at this time Jesus, a wise man . . . for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross...those who loved him from the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day . . . And even now, the race of Christians, so named from him, has not died out.”

36. The Unthinkable Shame

Illustration

Phillip Yancy

In a memoir of the years before World War II, Pierre Van Paassen tells of an act of humiliation by Nazi storm troopers who had seized an elderly Jewish rabbi and dragged him to headquarters.

In the far end of the same room, two colleagues were beating another Jew to death, but the captors of the rabbi decided to have some fun with him. They stripped him naked and commanded that he preach the sermon he had prepared for the coming Sabbath in the synagogue. The rabbi asked if he could wear his yarmulke, and the Nazis, grinning, agreed. It added to the joke. The trembling rabbi proceeded to deliver in a raspy voice his sermon on what it means to walk humbly before God, all the while being poked and prodded by the hooting Nazi, and all the while hearing the last cries of his neighbor at the end of the room.

When you read the gospel accounts of the imprisonment, torture, and execution of Jesus, it might make you think of that naked rabbi standing humiliated in a police station. It's hard to fathom the indignity, the SHAME endured by God's Son on earth, stripped naked, flogged, spat on, struck in the face, garland with thorns.

Neither could Peter and that is why he protest so. That the Messiah, whom he has now recognized, should suffer at the hands of the Roman enemies on a cruel and shameful cross was unthinkable.

37. Nursery Rhyme Hermeneutics

Illustration

Michael P. Green

In all innocence, children have for centuries sung a nursery rhyme that is in truth anything but an innocent verse:

Ring-a-ring o’roses,
A pocket full of posies,
A-tishoo! A-tishoo!
We all fall down!

The rhyme arose about 1665 in the streets of London during a plague epidemic of the Black Death. Each phrase of the rhyme refers to an aspect of the plague.

“Ring o’roses” is a reference to the small, red rashlike areas that developed on people infected with the plague.

“Pocket full of posies” is a reference to the ancient belief that evil smells were the poisonous breath of demons who afflicted people with the disease. It was thought that sweet-smelling herbs and flowers would drive them off.

“A-tishoo! A-tishoo!” is a reference to the sneezing that was a symptom of the plague.

“We all fall down!” is a reference to death.

Thus, a common children’s rhyme is in fact a sinister parody of one of the most dreaded plagues ever to strike—the Black Death.

The same loss of context and therefore of meaning can affect those who study the Scriptures. And that is why when we seek to interpret the word of God, we do so in part by studying its historical, grammatical context.

38. The Covenants of the Scripture

Illustration

Merrill F. Unger

Scripture's covenants and their significance:

Eternal covenant, Hebrews 13:20 :The redemptive covenant before time began, between the Father and the Son. By this covenant we have eternal redemption, an eternal peace from the 'God of peace', through the death and resurrection of the Son.

Edenic covenant, Genesis 1:26-28: The creative covenant between the Triune God, as the first party (Genesis 1:26), and newly created man, as the second party, governing man's creation and life in Edenic innocence. It regulated man's dominion and subjugation of the earth, and presented a simple test of obedience. The penalty was death.

Adamic covenant, Genesis 3:14-19: The covenant conditioning fallen man's life on the earth. Satan's tool (the serpent) was cursed (Gen 3:14); the first promise of the Redeemer was given (3:15); women's status was altered (3:16); the earth was cursed (3:17-19); physical and spiritual death resulted (3:19).

Noahic covenant, Genesis 8:20-9:6: The covenant of human government. Man is to govern his fellowmen for God, indicated by the institution of capital punishment as the supreme judicial power of the state (Genesis 9:5-6). Other features included the promise of redemption through the line of Shem (Genesis 9:26).

Abrahamic covenant, Genesis 12:1-3; confirmed 13:14-17; 15:1-7; 17:1-8: The covenant of promise. Abraham's posterity was to be made a great nation. In him (through Christ) all the families of the earth were to be blessed (Galations 3:16; John 8:56-58).

Mosaic covenant, Exodus 20:1-31:18: The legal covenant, given solely to Israel. It consisted of the commandments (Exodus 20:1-26); the judgments (social) - (Exodus 21:1; 24:11) and the ordinances (religious); (Exodus 24:12-31:18); also called the law. It was a conditional covenant of works, a ministry of 'condemnation' and 'death' (2 Corinthians 3:7-9), designed to lead the transgressor (convicted thereby as a sinner) to Christ.

Palestinian covenant, Deut 30:1-10: The covenant regulating Israel's tenure of the land of Canaan. Its prophetic features include dispersion of disobedience (Deuteronomy 30:1), future repentance while in dispersion (30:2), the Lord's return (30:3), the restoration (30:4-5, national conversion (3:6), judgment of Israel's foes (30:7), national prosperity (30:9). Its blessings are conditioned upon obedience (30:8,10), but fulfillment is guaranteed by the new covenant.

Davidic covenant, 2 Samuel 7:4-17, 1 Chr 17:4-15: The kingdom covenant regulating the temporal and eternal rule of David's posterity. It secures in perpetuity a Davidic 'house' or line, a throne, and a kingdom. It was confirmed by divine oath in Psalm 89:30-37 and renewed to Mary in Luke 1:31-33. It is fulfilled in Christ as the World's Saviour and Israel's coming King (Acts 1:6; Rev 19:16; 20:4-6).

New covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Hebrew 8:8-12: The covenant of unconditional blessing based upon the finished redemption of Christ. It secures blessing for the church, flowing from the Abrahamic covenant (Galations 3:13-20), and secures all covenant blessings to converted Israel, including those of the Abrahamic, Palestinian, and Davidic covenants. This covenant is unconditional, final and irreversible.

39. The Nicene Creed

Illustration

Staff

The Nicene Creed is a statement of belief widely used in Christian liturgy. It is called Nicene because it was originally adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day İznik, Turkey) by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

We believe in one God,
      the Father almighty,
      maker of heaven and earth,
      of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
      the only Son of God,
      begotten from the Father before all ages,
           God from God,
           Light from Light,
           true God from true God,
      begotten, not made;
      of the same essence as the Father.
      Through him all things were made.
      For us and for our salvation
           he came down from heaven;
           he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
           and was made human.
           He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
           he suffered and was buried.
           The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
           He ascended to heaven
           and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
           He will come again with glory
           to judge the living and the dead.
           His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the Lord, the giver of life.
      He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
      and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
      He spoke through the prophets.
      We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
      We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
      We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
      and to life in the world to come. Amen.

The Nicene Creed (325-381 A.D.) provides a fuller explanation of the Christian faith. It is called Nicene because a general council of the church, similar to Vatican II held in the 1960s, met in the city of Nicaea in Asia Minor. The Council was called to deal with the heresy of Arianism, which was a denial of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed goes into more detail than the Apostles' Creed on the Trinity and the person of Jesus.

A final version of the creed was formulated by another Council which met in Constantinople in 381 A.D. The creed is and has been from the start a topic of contention. In 598 a provincial church council meeting in Toledo, Spain, added the "filioque clause" which says that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father "and the Son." This added clause was accepted by the Western but not the Eastern church. It became one of the causes of the schism between East and West in 1064 A.D. Today the clause is still proving to be a stumbling block to closer relations with the Eastern Orthodox church. The Nicene Creed is familiar to most churchgoers in liturgical churches, because it is used in the worship service on festivals and certain seasons such as Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter.

40. Our Lord's Abundant Table - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

Charles Swindol tells a funny story about a nine-year-old named Danny who came bursting out of Sunday school like a wild stallion. His eyes were darting in every direction as he tried to locate either mom or dad. Finally, after a quick search, he grabbed his Daddy by the leg and yelled, "Man, that story of Moses and all those people crossing the Red Sea was great!" His father looked down, smiled, and asked the boy to tell him about it.

"Well, the Israelites got out of Egypt, but Pharaoh and his army chased after them. So the Jews ran as fast as they could until they got to the Red Sea. The Egyptian Army was gettin' closer and closer. So Moses got on his walkie-talkie and told the Israeli Air Force to bomb the Egyptians. While that was happening, the Israeli Navy built a pontoon bridge so the people could cross over. They made it!

By now old dad was shocked. "Is THAT the way they taught you the story?"

Well, no, not exactly," Danny admitted, "but if I told you the way they told it to us, you'd never believe it, Dad."

With childlike innocence the little guy put his finger on the pulse of our sophisticated adult world where cool skepticism reigns supreme. It's more popular to operate in the black-and-white world of facts…and, of course, to leave no space for the miraculous.

And so when we read the story of the feeding of the five thousand, we tend to focus our attention on the question, "Did it really happen?" There have been a number of attempts to "explain" the miracle. One attempt says that the people were so moved by Jesus' generosity and the generosity of the little boy that they brought forth the food they had hidden under their clothes and in their traveling pouches. This way everyone was satisfied. Another theory says that the story is not really talking about physical hunger but spiritual hunger. When the small amount of food was passed around everyone tore off a minuscule symbolic fragment. In this Jesus is said to have satisfied the thirst of the soul not the stomach.

I think these questions say more about us than they do Jesus. If Jesus is the Messiah, and I believe he is, then there is no question but that he performed miracles, and on a regular basis. The point of the story of feeding of the five thousand is not to prove that miracles happen. The point of the story is to teach us three things:

1. Jesus is the Fulfillment of the Word.
2. We Are to Serve at the Table of the Lord.
3. We Can Use Our Abilities in Service.

41. A Love Let Loose

Illustration

Rev. Dr. B. Wiley Stephens

John Mansfield, in his play “The Trial of Jesus,” pictures Pilate’s wife remaining in the judgment hall long after everybody else had left the scene of Christ’s crucifixion. Finally, a soldier who had taken part in the crucifixion comes in, and she asks him, “Is he dead yet?”

The soldier shakes his head and says, “No, lady, he is not dead.”

She questions him further, “But surely he is dead, he has been hanging there so long now.”

And the soldier replies, “No, lady, he is not dead. His love is let loose in the world now, and neither Jew nor Roman can stop him.”

42. Three Ways of Viewing Christmas

Illustration

Harry Reasoner

The basis for this tremendous annual burst of gift buying and parties and near hysteria is a quiet event that Christians believe actually happened a long time ago. You can say that in all societies there has always been a midwinter festival and that many of the trappings of our Christmas are almost violently pagan. But you come back to the central fact of the day and quietness of Christmas morning—the birth of God on earth.

It leaves you only three ways of accepting Christmas. One is cynically, as a time to make money or endorse the making of it. One is graciously, the appropriate attitude for non-Christians, who wish their fellow citizens all the joys to which their beliefs entitle them. And the third, of course, is reverently. If this is the anniversary of the appearance of the Lord of the universe in the form of a helpless babe, it is a very important day. It's a startling idea, of course. My guess is that the whole story that a virgin was selected by God to bear His Son as a way of showing His love and concern for man is not an idea that has been popular with theologians.

It's a somewhat illogical idea, and theologians like logic almost as much as they like God. It's so revolutionary a thought that it probably could only come from a God that is beyond logic, and beyond theology. It has a magnificent appeal. Almost nobody has seen God, and almost nobody has any real idea of what He is like. And the truth is that among men the idea of seeing God suddenly and standing in a very bright light is not necessarily a completely comforting and appealing idea. But everyone has seen babies, and most people like them. If God wanted to be loved as well as feared he moved correctly here. If He wanted to know His people as well as rule them, He moved correctly here, for a baby growing up learns all about people. If God wanted to be intimately a part of man, He moved correctly, for the experiences of birth and familyhood are our most intimate and precious experiences.

So it comes beyond logic. It is either all falsehood or it is the truest thing in the world. It's the story of the great innocence of God the baby—God in the form of man—and has such a dramatic shock toward the heart that if it is not true, for Christians, nothing is true.

So, if a Christian is touched only once a year, the touching is still worth it, and maybe on some given Christmas, some final quiet morning, the touch will take.

43. Truth Or Duty?

Illustration

Klyne Snodgrass

One of the most famous trials in history was that of Benjamin Francois Courvoisier in London in 1840, who is now immortalized in Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum. Courvoisier was a Swiss valet accused of slicing the throat of his elderly employer, Lord William Russell. What made this trial notorious was the argument for the defense. The police had bungled the investigation. The evidence against Courvoisier was entirely circumstantial or had been planted. One of the officers had perjured himself, and the maid's testimony brought suspicion on herself. The defense attorney, Charles Phillips, was convinced of the innocence of Courvoisier and cross-examined witnesses aggressively. At the beginning of the second day of the trial, however, Courvoisier confessed privately to his lawyer that he had committed the murder. When asked if he were going to plead guilty, he replied to Charles Phillips, "No, sir, I expect you to defend me to the utmost." Phillips was faced with a dilemma. Should he declare to the court that the man was guilty, or should he defend Courvoisier as best he could? Should he break the confidentiality of the client-lawyer relationship, or should he help a guilty man to possibly go free? Which is more important - truth or professional duty?

Phillips decided to defend the guilty man. But despite Phillips's efforts, Courvoisier was convicted. When the dilemma was later made public, Phillips's decision to defend a murderer horrified British society and brought him a great deal of criticism.

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

Illustration

Brett Blair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. The Reason Why

Illustration

Staff

On February 15, 1947 Glenn Chambers boarded a plane bound for Quito, Ecuador to begin his ministry in missionary broadcasting with the important "Voice of the Andes." But he never arrived. In a horrible moment, the plane carrying Chambers crashed into a mountain peak and spiraled downward. Later it was learned that before leaving the Miami airport, Chambers wanted to write his mother a letter. All he could find for stationery was a page of advertising on which was written the single word "WHY?" Around that word he hastily scribbled a final note. After Chambers's mother learned of her son's death, his letter arrived. She opened the envelope, took out the paper, and unfolded it. Staring her in the face was the question "WHY?"

No doubt this was the questions Jesus' disciples asked when He was arrested, tried, and crucified. And it was probably the questions Joseph of Arimathea asked himself as he approached Pilate and requested the Lord's body (v.58). It must have nagged at him as he wrapped the body in a linen cloth, carried it to his own freshly hewn tomb, and rolled the massive stone into its groove over the tomb's mouth. In the face of his grief, Joseph carried on. He did what he knew he had to do. None of Jesus' relatives were in a position to claim His body for burial, for they were all Galileans and none of them possessed a tomb in Jerusalem. The disciples weren't around to help either.

But there was another reason for Joseph's act of love. In Isaiah 53:9, God directed the prophet to record an important detail about the death of His Messiah. The One who had no place to lay his head would be buried in a rich man's tomb. Joseph probably didn't realize that his act fulfilled prophecy. The full answer to the why of Jesus' death was also several days away for Joseph and the others. All he knew was that he was now a disciple of Jesus and that was enough to motivate his gift of love.

46. Silent Prayer

Illustration

Our Daily Bread

A father took his small son with him to town one day to run some errands. When lunchtime arrived, the two of them went to a familiar diner for a sandwich. The father sat down on one of the stools at the counter and lifted the boy up to the seat beside him. They ordered lunch, and when the waiter brought the food, the father said, "Son, we'll just have a silent prayer."

Dad got through praying first and waited for the boy to finish his prayer, but he just sat with his head bowed for an unusually long time. When he finally looked up, his father asked him, "What in the world were you praying about all that time?"

With the innocence and honesty of a child, he replied, "How do I know? It was a silent prayer."

47. The Heavyweight Championship of the Universe

Illustration

Peter Kreeft

Calvary is judo. The enemy’s own power is used to defeat him. Satan’s craftily orchestrated plot, rolled along according to play by his agents Judas, Pilate, Herod, and Caiaphas, culminating in the death of God. And this very event, Satan’s conclusion, was God’s premise. Satan’s end was God’s means. It saved the world. Christians celebrate the greatest evil and the greatest tragedy of all time as Good Friday. In the symbolic language of Revelation, the meek little lamb (arnion) defeats the great and terrible Beast (therion) in the last battle, the fight for the heavyweight championship of the universe, by shedding his own blood. Satan’s bloody plan became the means of his own despoilment. God won Satan’s captives - us - back to himself by freely dying in our place.

It is, of course, the most familiar, the most often-told story in the world. Yet it is also the strangest, and it has never lost its strangeness, its awe, and will not even in eternity, where angels tremble to gaze at things we yawn at. And however strange, it is the only key that fits the lock of our tortured lives and needs.

48. A Way to God

Illustration

King Duncan

Legend has it that before the Reformation, before he transformed the church, Martin Luther was in his room in the monastery weeping because of his sins. His confessor, a young man, simply didn't know what to do, so he began repeating the Apostles' Creed

"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

"I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of Saints; the forgiveness of sins; the . . . ."

Wait!" Luther interrupted his confessor. "What did you say?"

What do you mean, what did I say?"

That last part. What was it again?"

Oh, that. I said, ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.'"

"The forgiveness of sins," Luther said as if savoring each word. "The forgiveness of sins. Then there is hope for me somewhere. Then maybe there is a way to God."

There is a way to God. Jesus Christ died to provide that way. We may not be a woman of the city but there are sins that break our hearts as well. And there is One who sees those broken hearts and cares, and forgives, and heals, and makes whole.

49. The Absurdity of the the Resurrection

Illustration

Thomas Long

In John Updike's A Month of Sundays there is a story that illustrates the absurdity of the the resurrection and maybe the story is more about beleif in it is a bit absurd: Clint Tidwell is the pastor of a church in a small Southern town, and one of his blessings and one of his curses is that the 80-year-old owner and still-active editor of the local newspaper is a member of his congregation. The blessing part is that this old journalist believes Tidwell to be one of the finest preachers around, and, wishing the whole town to benefit from this homiletical wisdom, he publishes a summary of Tidwell's Sunday sermon every Monday morning in the paper. The curse part is that this newspaperman, though well meaning, is a bit on the dotty and eccentric side, and Tidwell is often astonished to read the synopses of his sermons. The man owns the newspaper; nobody dares edit his columns, and the difference between what Tidwell thought he said and what the editor actually heard is often a source of profound amazement and embarrassment to Tidwell.

Tidwell's deepest amazement and embarrassment, however, came not when the newspaper editor misunderstood the Sunday sermon but, to the contrary, when he understood it all too sharply and clearly. It was early on the Monday morning after Easter, and Tidwell, in his bathrobe and slippers, was padding out the carport door to retrieve the Monday newspaper. The paper was lying at the end of the driveway, and, as Tidwell approached, he could see that the morning headline was in "second coming" sized type. What could it be? he wondered. Had war broken out somewhere? Had the local bank failed over the weekend? Had a cure for cancer been discovered? As he drew close enough to focus on the headline, he was startled to read the words, "Tidwell Claims Jesus Christ Rose From The Dead."

A red flush crept up Tidwell's neck. Yes, of course, he had claimed in yesterday's sermon that Christ rose from the dead, but golly, was that headline news? What would the neighbors think? I mean, you're supposed to say that on Easter, aren't you, that Christ rose from the dead, but that's not like saying that some person who died last week had risen from the grave, is it? Suddenly, as he looked at the screaming headline, what had been a routine Easter sermon had Tidwell feeling rather foolish.

Indeed, it is foolish the foolishness of the gospel. Those who gather on this Easter Day to sing and say that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today" do so not because we have proved anything philosophically, discerned some mystical key to the Scripture, or found some unassailable piece of historical evidence. We believe in the resurrection because the beloved disciple, the forerunner of all Easter faith, believed and passed the word along all the way into the present, prompting frail folks, like Tidwell and like us, to say what we believe: "I believe in Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell -- and dare we believe it? Dare we wager everything on it? -- rose again on the third day."

50. Hit the Road Jack

Illustration

Billy D. Strayhorn

Mark was three years old when his pet lizard died. Since it was her grandson's first brush with death, Grandma suggested that Mark and an older boy in the family hold a "funeral" for the lizard. Grandma explained what a funeral was: a ceremony where you say a prayer, sing a song, and bury your loved one.

Grandma even provided a shoe box and a burial place in the backyard. The boys thought it was a great idea, so they all proceeded to the backyard. Taking the lead, the older boy said a prayer. Then he turned and asked little Mark if he wouldn't like to sing a song. With tears in his eyes, Mark clasped his hands, bowed his head, and belted out "Hit the Road, Jack" by Ray Charles.

That's exactly what Pilate, Herod, the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Caiaphas, Ananias and everyone else who had plotted the death of Jesus was singing on Friday. That was their fondest wish. "Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more, no more, no more, no more. Hit the road Jack and don't you come back no more."

Showing 1 to 50 of 57 results