Sermon and Worship Resources

Mark 3:20-30 · Jesus and Beelzebub

20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."

23 So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

30 He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

When You Are Wrongly Criticized

Mark 3:20-30

Sermon
by Leonard Sweet

Anyone here like criticism?

How do you respond to criticism?

Does being criticized bring you down or fire you up?

Do you want to hunker in your bunker or lob your own volley of vitriol back at your critics?

Learning how to respond to criticism is a lifetime journey. That’s because critics will be accompanying you from cradle to grave!

In every election year there is no shortage of negative, critical remarks flying around the airwaves. Of course all politicians virtuously claim they hate “negative” ads. And, of course, every candidate uses them. The justification for both sides is “Negative ads work.” Surveys allegedly show that those nasty, negative, often highly personal attacks are the most effective way of swaying public opinion. Negativity, bad-mouthing, accusatory honking profoundly changes the way we think and the way we act.

In a Charlie Brown cartoon, little brother Linus, looking very forlorn, asks big sister Lucy, “Why are you always so anxious to criticize me?” Lucy, looking very self-righteous, replies, “I just think I have a knack for seeing other people’s faults.” Linus turns indignant. “What about your own faults?” he asks. “I have a knack for overlooking them,” says Lucy.

Unfortunately, those best at hurting and critiquing us are those closest to us. In today’s gospel text Jesus is beset by critics. The first in line? His own family members.

It is easy to see how those who knew Jesus as brother, cousin, nephew, uncle, or brother-in-law (yes, Jesus was all of those; someone called him “Uncle Jesus”) who were used to sitting with him at family meals, working with him in the family business, telling jokes and burping babies with him, would find this new presence and persona foreign and even frightening. Glimpsing the God-inspired power that was drawing a whole new contingent of followers to this man who had simply been a bother, a cousin, a nephew, or a brother-in-law, Jesus’ family assumes and assaults with the worst — “He has gone out of his mind.”

How hurtful must it have been for Jesus to be rejected and labeled “crazy” so early in his ministry by those he had known and loved longest and the best. Despite this deeply personal critical encounter, Jesus does not personalize his response. His focus remains on “the family.” But he simply redefines who that family is. His family becomes all those who do “the will of God” — a definition that leaves the door open for all his blood relatives, but also now includes all those who follow him and recognize God’s Spirit present in him.

A family confrontation such as is described in today’s text could have made anyone into a “wound licker.” A “wound licker” is someone who cannot hear a critique, or suffer a personal injury, but then deal with it and let it go. Everyone needs a “shaggy dog” story and this is one that fits today’s text. “Hannibal” was a 180 pound Great Pyrenees — he looked like a huge, all white Saint Bernard. One day an enthusiastic tail wag whacked his long, plumed tail against the wall. He broke the skin on the tip end of his tail, making it bleed a bit. By all reckoning a “no-count” injury.

Except Hannibal couldn’t let it go. He started licking his wounds and kept licking. His constant licking of the wound roughed it up, ripped it open, and ruined it. The wound became horribly infected and a “tail-ectomy” docking his tail to half its original length had to be performed.

Sent home from dog surgery to recuperate, Hannibal still couldn’t let that wound go. Despite one of those great “lampshade” collars around his neck, he managed to wad himself into a corner and get hold of that injured tail. He licked and licked it into a renewed state of despair. His second surgery docked his previously long plume into a tiny bunny tail. His “lamp shade” collar was replaced with a much more restrictive five gallon, straight-sided bucket. Hannibal became the most ridiculous big dog you’ve ever seen — a bucket on his head, a bunny tail on his rear.

Hannibal couldn’t “let go” of his wound. He was obsessed with worrying over it and working on it. His obsession over his “woundedness” almost got him killed.

Concentrating on wounds we receive, the barbed critiques that poke, prod, snipe, and snarl at us, will turn us all into frantic, self-destructive, wound-lickers. Instead we need to hear our critics, deal with the criticism, and then drop all that “critical mass” off at the next trash receptacle.

Don’t worry about letting it go — there will be more to come. Let it go and keep moving.

Sometimes I feel like that poor mule that fill into a dead well that was about 20 feet deep. Have you ever heard that story? Well, the farmer saw from a distance what had happened to his mule, but it was just at dusk and by the time he got to the well it was totally dark and he had no flashlight. But the farmer listened hard for movement, called out to his mule and got no response, so presumed the animal was dead. So what do you do with a dead mule in a dead well? Well, you bury it. There was a pile of dirt nearby, so the farmer started throwing dirt into the well.

Now the mule had actually landed on “all fours,” and while it was initially shaken up and knocked out, the mule eventually came around and was alright. But it couldn’t move. It knew that it had to exercise in some way. So it did. The mule started stomping to keep its muscles from deteriorating, and by the morning do you know what happened? The farmer thought he had filled the well with dirt almost to the top. But in the morning light there appeared the old stomping mule at the top of the well ‑‑ on well‑tamped and solid ground.

I do like to duck at times from all the dirt…but if we keep moving, and stomping, and kicking down the dirt, we’ll end up on top.

Our Google world, our Facebook walls, may seem to be hurling more dirt than ever before. But really — not so much. Already in the late second century the pagan Celsus observed that though Jews and Christians quarreled, they did not quarrel as loudly and viciously as different groups of Christians quarreled with each other.

Think some of our “in your face” journalists are bad these days at throwing dirt? In 1844 when the Methodists met in General Conference someone said that the atmosphere was so tense that he could get 500 signatures to hang a famous Methodist preacher in Albany, New York in a short period of time. Someone bet him $500.00 he couldn’t, and the challenge was accepted. A petition was circulated, and within the allotted time 500 signatures for a public hanging of the preacher were brought in and confirmed.

In the great literary tradition of “T-shirt” truths, a recent rag celebrates the fact that “You’re nobody until your Anathema to Somebody . . .”

Mark’s candid description of Jesus being labeled as “crazy” by his family and as a demon-possessed, Satan-empowered magician by the staid and stately scribes proves Machiavelli’s shrewd observation that “hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil ones.” You can count is as a life truth: the people you help the most will betray you the worst. You can count is as a life truth: the price of love is a broken heart.

You say: not me. I say: you think you’re better than Jesus? Jesus had cast out hurtful demons from suffering souls, healed paralytics, and gathered a rag-tag assortment of people around him to listen and learn about the love of God and the promise of God’s coming kingdom. For these “terrible” actions he was branded as crazy, as possessed, as blasphemous, as an instrument of the “prince of demons.”

Jesus’ answer to his critics is found in today’s confrontation. He does not assault any of his attackers. When his relatives reviled him, he turned the other cheek and celebrated his new family — a family that in no way forever excluded his earthly family. When the scribes assailed him with their arsenals of theological brickbats, he turned the other cheek by exposing their faulty logic even as he revealed the truth of his own source of power.

He calmly offered his critics something called Choice and Consequences. They get to choose, but with their choice comes consequences. It’s not a no-fault choice. They either acknowledge the presence of God’s Spirit and embrace God’s will, or, if they choose to wrongly to view good as evil, they can suffer the consequences. Choices have Consequences. Either way, Jesus keeps moving.

Being wrongly criticized — being told you are wrong, you are crazy, you are lazy, you are foolish, you are at fault, you are weak, you are alone — is never fun. But criticism is a sign that you are doing something that matters enough to rile up stagnant waters.

Ghandi was hooted at, hollered down, and hauled away throughout his lifetime of activism. But being criticized and censored wasn’t the greatest challenge he experienced. After a lifetime of being on the outside, and then suddenly ushered into the inner sanctums, Ghandi noted this:

When we try to bring about change in our societies we are treated first with indifference, then with ridicule, then with abuse and then with oppression. And finally, the greatest challenge is thrown at us: We are treated with respect. This is the most dangerous stage.

There is something more dangerous than criticism. That something is respectability.

Don’t respond to critiques of yourself with critiques of your critics. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t inspire the nation and jumpstart the transformation of our society by announcing “I have a complaint!” or, “I have a beef!” or “I have a kvetch!” Martin Luther King, Jr. looked at all that was wrong, all that was unjust, all that was sinful, and did not offer the world a critique. Instead he offered the world a “dream” — a new vision of justice, mercy, and love.

And on what basis did Martin Luther King, Jr. build his dream? His basis was his place and participation in his first family — not his American family, not even his Baptist family, but as a member of Jesus Christ’s family and the family of God.

We have learned how to deal with criticism this morning from a dog, a donkey, Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. The only one missing is Mother Teresa. So let’s end with her. Whenever Mother Teresa would meet someone who was particularly obnoxious, or hateful, or mean or disturbed, she would say to herself, “Here is Jesus in a distressing disguise.”

You will meet lots of Jesus’ in “distressing disguises” in your lifetime. There are lots of razor-bladed religious people out there. Don’t lick your wounds. Let your wounds heal. Turn the other cheek by giving them choice-and-consequences. And keep moving, always expecting around the bend another “Jesus in a distressing disguise.”

________________________________
COMMENTARY

One of Mark’s favorite literary recipes is the “Markan sandwich.” It is called the “Markan sandwich” because Mark likes to use the technique of inserting one story into the middle of another in order to demonstrate the connectedness between the two. In this week’s gospel text Mark begins with a narrative about Jesus’ personal family (3:20-21). But suddenly he interrupts it with the story of accusations of the scribes. Hence “Markan sandwich.”

In this story, some scribes insist that Jesus is possessed and that the exorcisms he has performed were enabled by a demonic source (vv.222-28). Only after Jesus has responded to the scribes’ allegations does the narrative return to the drama between Jesus and his family (vv.30-35). This particular “sandwich” demonstrates the connection between the wrong attitudes held by both these groups. The learned scholars from Jerusalem, as well as those who have known Jesus all his life, both fail to see the presence of the Spirit and the working out of God’s will in the person and actions of Jesus. Greatness is walking by in front of them, and they not only fail to recognize greatness when they see it. They attack it.

Today’s narrative begins with a “focus on the family.” But it is not a pretty picture. Mark is the only gospel that records this extreme judgment and reaction expressed by Jesus’ family. The term translated in v. 21 as “family” is “hoi par autou” — literally “those from him.” This is a colloquial term that could include immediate “family,” “relatives,” or even “friends.” When the text returns to this story in v.31, it is clear that those involved in this confrontation are in fact Jesus’ own family. Thus it is those who have known him the longest, who have lived with him since childhood, who look at this new situation and conclude “He has gone out of his mind” (v.21).

After this diagnosis Mark “sandwiches” in his other scene. A contingent of scribes from Jerusalem were most likely sent by the Sanhedrin to investigate this preacher, healer, exorcist who was suddenly attracting large crowds of followers. Immediately these religious authorities make their own assessment of Jesus and his activities. They accuse him first of being possessed by “Beelzebul” (a reference to the ancient Canaanite god). They then conclude that any acts of exorcism conducted by him were carried out through demonic power, by “the ruler of the demons” (v.22). In other words, they charge Jesus with practicing sorcery, or magic, a serious crime punishable by death.

Jesus’ response to this pronouncement is described as a “parable” (“parabole”), Mark’s first use of this term. A parable “throws” or “places” two different things side by side for comparison. Mark wrote “sandwiches.” Jesus spoke in parables.

Jesus sharpens the focus of the scribe’s accusations by replacing the obscure “Beelzebul” with the familiar adversarial term “Satan.” Combating the hold Satan has on this world is his own mission, Jesus declares. Why would Satan enable the very one who has come to destroy him? Such an action would be as a “kingdom” or a “household” divided and at war with itself. Having experienced the implosion of the Herodian dynasty, Mark’s audience would be well acquainted with the destructive consequences that result from a divided kingdom. In light of the accusations of madness just leveled at him by his own family Jesus’ mention of a divided “household” is poignant.

The second parabolic argument Jesus offers is the example of the “strong man” who must first be bound if his house is to be plundered. This image asserts Satan’s strength in this world, yet simultaneously it also subtly submits that Jesus’ own power is greater. If Satan is the “strong man” who holds the world in his death grip, with every exorcism or healing Jesus demonstrates his superior power over that evil.

Jesus concludes his response to the scribes with his first “Amen” saying. This is a distinctive formula used only by Jesus that precludes an authoritative “thus-says-the-Lord” pronouncement. What Jesus proclaims is both the promise of forgiveness and of condemnation. The promise of forgiveness is a broadly spread blanket: “Whatever blasphemies they utter.” The promise of condemnation is highly specific: blasphemy “against the Holy Spirit.”

This latter “unforgiveable sin,” as it is so often called, has been redefined and reconfigured by different theologians and churches over the centuries. St. Augustine’s conclusion that this was the sin of continued impenitence and a stubborn resistance to God’s grace served as fuel to many a theological firestorm. Unfortunately blasphemy “against the Holy Spirit” often became blasphemy against whatever theological mandate was in charge — be they Catholic Calvinist, Puritan, Arminian, Reformed, or Holiness.

In the context of today’s gospel, however, this “blasphemy” Jesus speaks of is specific. The scribes to whom he is speaking have observed Jesus’ healings and exorcisms and they have refused to see these actions as the work of the Holy Spirit. Instead they have “blasphemed” by ascribing the presence of the Holy Spirit to the presence of the “prince of demons.” They look at good and see only evil. They look at Jesus who possesses the Spirit of God and declare him to have an “unclean spirit.”

Now Mark’s text returns to his first story, refocusing on the fracas within Jesus’ own family. The physical symbolism Mark describes is telling. Jesus’ family stands “outside,” cut off from approaching Jesus and dragging him home, by the crowds of those who are listening and learning from him. Just previous to today’s text Mark had described the calling of Jesus’ chosen twelve disciples, a new community, a new family, of faith that will walk and work with Jesus throughout his earthly mission. They are “inside,” next to Jesus, surrounding him, while his family who have labeled Jesus as “out of his mind” are cut-off, remote from that new series of relationships.

Jesus offers the first of yet another of his distinctive sayings — an inclusive “gnomic” utterance that begins with “whoever” or “if anyone” (see Mark 9:37-40; 10:29-31; 10:43,45; 11:23). “Family” is now redefined as “whoever does the will of God.” Jesus does the will of God by being accused of demon possession and sorcery, by being rejected, by suffering and dying. “Doing the will of God” admits one to Jesus’ family and it binds all new family members together as “brother and sister and mother.” But admission to this new family comes with criticism. And it may have to be bought with blood.

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

Overview and Insights · Deranged and Demon Possessed? (3:20–35)

Overview · Here Mark sandwiches together two stories—the reaction of Jesus’s physical family (3:20–21, 31–35) and the accusation of scribes (3:22–30). Jesus’s family is probably trying to guard their reputation and honor by restraining him. They think he’s lost his mind. When accused by the experts from Jerusalem of being demon possessed, Jesus uses powerful logic to refute their claim: it makes no sense for Satan to drive out Satan, since that would be self-defeating. The only one stronger than Satan is God, and he is acting through Jesus. The scribes, however, are in danger of blaspheming the Spirit (an unforgivable sin) by deliberately attributing the work of God through Jesus to the work of Satan (3:30). At the end, Jesus redefines family in spiritual rather than physical terms.

Insight…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Mark 3:20-30 · Jesus and Beelzebub

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."

30 He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

Commentary · Jesus and Beelzebub

The narrative in 3:20–35 is the first of Mark’s signature “sandwich” units, in which a seemingly unrelated story is shoehorned into the middle of another story. The middle story determines the meaning of the flanking halves and succeeds in making an entirely new point of the A1-B-A2 sequence. Mark begins (A1, 3:20–21) and ends (A2, 3:31–35) the narrative with Jesus in a house surrounded by family and followers, into which he inserts the B-story of Jesus and Beelzebul (3:22–30).

The story begins with a house so besieged by a crowd that Jesus and the disciples are “not even able to eat.” Evidently believing that Jesus is on a collision course with the Jewish religious establishment, his friends and followers (“his own people,” 3:21 NASB, NKJV) conclude that Jesus “is out of his mind” (3:21) and attempt to “take charge of him.” Leaving this episode momentarily in abeyance, Mark inserts the accusation of the scribes that Jesus is in league with Satan (3:22). The Greek reference to “Beelzeboul” (NIV “Beelzebul”) appears to equate Satan with the pagan god Baal, who was ubiquitously detested in Israel. The contemptuous epithet, apparently meaning “Baal the prince,” or “Baal’s dominion,” insinuates that Jesus derives his power to cast out demons from the archdemon himself. Jesus responds with a threefold refutation. Verses 23–26 appeal to logic: since the ministry of Jesus is diametrically opposed to Satan, if what the scribes say is true, then Satan is clearly working against himself and hastening his own downfall. Verse 27 refutes the accusation in a terse but trenchant parable: Jesus is the More Powerful One (1:7), who plunders the “strong man’s [Satan’s] house” and makes his possessions (those oppressed by Satan) his own. Finally, in 3:28–29 Jesus issues a solemn warning against blaspheming the work of God’s Holy Spirit. The key to understanding this controversial admonition is Mark’s editorial insertion, “They were saying, ‘He has an impure spirit’ ” (3:30). Anyone who can call the ministry of Jesus evil can no longer judge between good and evil, light and darkness. Such a sin is eternal because loss of ability to differentiate between good and evil entails also the loss of ability to repent of evil.

Mark concludes the “sandwich” in verses 31–35 by completing the episode of Jesus and his followers that he introduced in verses 20–21. The whole sandwich is devoted to the theme of insiders and outsiders. Jesus’s mother and brothers stand outside seeking him (3:32); that is, they intend to assert a claim on him. Ironically, those who would be expected to be on the inside (his own family and the Jewish religious establishment represented in the scribes) misjudge Jesus and remain outsiders. For Mark, there are only two positions in relation to Jesus: those who stand on the outside with false assumptions, or those unnamed and unexpected disciples “seated in a circle around [Jesus] . . . [who do] God’s will” (3:34–35), who are his true “brother and sister and mother” (3:35).

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

Big Idea: Opposition to Jesus takes a new turn as his family thinks that he is insane and the religious leaders accuse him of being demon possessed. Jesus’s response is twofold: he cannot be under the control of Satan because he has already bound Satan, and his true family consists of those who have joined him in the household of God.

Understanding the Text

Jesus’s ministry to sinners and his call to several outcasts to be among the Twelve will now get him in trouble with the authorities. This is the first intercalation, or “sandwiching” episode, in Mark, in which one story is placed within another so that the two interpret each other. In this case the Beelzebul charge (3:22–30) is placed within two parts of the story in which Jesus’s family comes to take him home (3:20–21, 31–35). The message is that Jesus’s own family joins the leaders in trying to sideline Jesus from his kingdom mission and divine destiny. This becomes the negative counterpart to the positive ministry Jesus has just conducted in 3:7–19.

Interpretive Insights

3:20 he and his disciples were not even able to eat. We do not know in what town or house this takes place. But as always, a huge crowd (see on 3:9) surrounds and fills the house. Here we get a further picture of the intensity of Jesus’s ministry. He and his disciples are kept so busy with the people that they “are not even able to eat,” a comment that shows the depth of their compassion and commitment to people and their needs.

3:21 his family . . . said, “He is out of his mind.” The RSV attempts to remove the stigma that this verse places on Jesus’s family by translating, “for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself.’” The problem is that the Greek has “they were saying,” and in the context “they” must refer to Jesus’s family. The situation in 3:20 was reported to his family, who here are described as nonfollowers (see John 7:5 on his brothers as unbelievers). “Take charge” is actually “they went to seize him,” using krate?, a verb often used in reference to arresting a criminal. They apparently want to force Jesus to return home with them and quit this foolish ministry. His mother may think that he is on the verge of a breakdown, but his brothers certainly think that he has gone crazy.

3:22 “He is possessed by Beelzebul!” No one could doubt that Jesus had cast out demons, so the scribes (“from Jerusalem” means an official delegation) challenge the source of his power. The imperfect verb elegon (“kept on saying”) refers to an ongoing campaign to vilify Jesus.1 “Beelzebul” likely stems from the name of a Canaanite god and can be understood as “lord of the height,”2 but perhaps is best interpreted as “lord of the abode” (which fits the idea of Satan’s house in 3:27). The main thing is this is another name for Satan, “the prince of demons,” also known in Jewish literature as Belial/Beliar (2 Cor. 6:15), Azazel (1 En.13:1), Mastema (Jub.10:8), and Asmodeus (Tob. 3:8). They are charging that Jesus’s power stems from being demon possessed himself. To them, the Son of God is the son of Satan!

3:23 How can Satan drive out Satan? If Jesus is demon possessed, it means that Satan has gone to war against his own demonic hordes, which cannot be. Jesus uses two “parables” to illustrate this. In the first parable, the prince of demons driving out other demons would constitute civil war. The “kingdom divided” builds on the idea that Satan’s minions are a military force divided into battalions or legions (cf. Eph. 6:12–14) that could erupt into an internal battle for power. Furthermore, there is political infighting in a “household” or dynasty, seen for instance in the “house” of Herod or in any number of royal situations in which brothers fought for kingship. In both cases, the kingdom would self-destruct, and that would be true of Satan’s dominion as well. (For further discussion of Satan, see the “Additional Insights” after the unit on Mark 4:1–20.)

3:27 no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. The second parable is the basis for the idea of “binding Satan” and provides the thesis statement for all spiritual warfare. Every exorcism is an example of the “binding” of Satan and his demonic forces, building on Isaiah 49:24–25, where God the divine warrior defeats Israel’s enemies and takes “plunder” for his people. Satan is the “strong man” encased in his fortress with his servants (the demons) as his army, much like Abraham and his servant army in Genesis 14:8–16. In an essay on the historical veracity of Jesus’s exorcisms, Craig Evans concludes that they “offer dramatic proof of the defeat and retreat of Satan’s kingdom in the face of the advancing rule of God.”3The text has Jesus entering the “house” (oikia, referring to this world) and plundering Satan’s “possessions” (skeu?, “vessels,” referring to the people demonized or possessed). Jesus’s point is that it is not Satan defeating his own forces; rather, it is Jesus binding Satan and giving the plunder to his own followers.

3:28 people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter. Here we have Jesus’s countercharge against the leaders. They charge him with demon possession; he charges them with committing the unpardonable sin. The difference is that his charge is true and will stick. This is the first of the am?n(“truly”) sayings in Mark (e.g., 8:12; 9:1), pointing to authoritative dominical assertions. The statement here is based on the amazing mercy of God (see Isa. 1:18; 43:25), who forgives both sins (offenses against others) and blasphemies (“slander,” offenses against God).

3:29 whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. In Jewish circles this unpardonable sin was sin “with a high hand” (Num. 15:30–31), especially profaning the name of God (m. Sanh.7:5, building on Lev. 24:15–16). Jesus here narrows this sin down to attributing the work of the Spirit to Satan. When they said of Jesus, “He has an impure spirit” (3:30), they were actually taking the power of the Spirit in Jesus to be the work of Satan. This is indeed profaning the name of God, now God the Holy Spirit. These scribes can “never be forgiven” (a divine passive, forgiven by God) because they are “guilty” or “liable” of an “eternal sin,” meaning a sin with eternal consequences. This works two ways: they will forever not want Christ, and God will for eternity never forgive them. The charge of their blasphemy is ironic in the sense that they charge Jesus with the same high sin in 2:6–10 and condemn him of the same sin at the Sanhedrin trial in 14:53–65.

3:31 Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. A list of Jesus’s brothers appears in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55 (both also mention “his sisters” [Matt. 13:56]). In order to support the perpetual virginity of Mary, there developed in Roman Catholic circles the view that adelphoi refers to cousins (Jerome, Augustine) or Joseph’s children by a previous marriage (Origen, Eusebius). Yet the more natural meaning is blood brothers, and that fits the New Testament occurrences better. Most likely, Jesus’s father, Joseph, is not mentioned because he has already died. Jesus’s family set out in 3:20–21 to “seize” Jesus and force him to return home to Nazareth. Moreover, their belief that he is “out of his mind” is connected to their charge that he is demon possessed. Now they arrive just as the diatribe with the scribes has ended. Mark describes them as “standing outside,” symbolizing Jesus’s family as being “outside” the circle of his followers and disciples and among those who in 4:11 are labeled by Jesus as “outsiders.” Their request is in reality an attempt to turn Jesus away from his God-given mission.

3:34 Here are my mother and my brothers! This does not demean the importance of the nuclear family, which is maintained throughout the Scriptures. Rather, this connotes the appearance of a new family, the church. Still, Jesus is saying that spiritual “brotherhood” trumps blood relationship; there is a deeper relationship in the family of God than in earthly ties. When they are pictured “seated in a circle around him,” this is “reminiscent of OT portrayals of a patriarch surrounded by his children” and so presents Jesus as “the center of a new ‘family circle.’”4

3:35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother. There are two emphases here. First, “the will of God” is a central theme in the New Testament for true discipleship (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 5:17; 1 Thess. 4:3; 5:18; 1 Pet. 4:2). This means that in every area of life the Christian seeks to live as God wants; the principles for doing so are encapsulated in his revealed word. Second, we must “do” God’s will or, as in James 1:22–25, be “doers” of the word and not mere “hearers.”

Theological Insights

Rejection is another key aspect of discipleship. If we are called to be one with Christ (3:14), then we will be opposed like he was, even by our own family (Matt. 10:21, 35–36). The theme of rejection has been a primary motif in Mark, and here we see the extent to which it can go, often involving our dearest loved ones. Another insight in this passage relates to spiritual warfare. Jesus has bound Satan, and the only proper response to Jesus is to surrender to and put complete faith in him. The supreme danger of blaspheming Jesus is real, and the result will be final rejection by God. The final insight relates to ecclesiology, envisioning the church as the new family of God in this world.

Teaching the Text

1. God creates a new family, the church. Previously we noted the church as being the new Israel, the restored people of God (3:14), and as a new community in Christ (see “Teaching the Text” on 2:18–3:6). Now we consider the church as a restored family, the children of God established in Jesus. These in fact are the three primary metaphors for the church. It begins as an assembly (the meaning of ekkl?sia, “church”)that fulfills the Abrahamic promise and unites believing Jews and Gentiles into the true Israel (Phil. 3:3). Then the assembly, as it matures, must become a community, a group of like-minded people who care and share and want to be together. Finally, that community must become a family of those who love one another and are deeply involved with each other.

2. Following Jesus entails the possible loss of earthly family ties. Jesus said, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34), referring to the severe hostility, even martyrdom, that following him might entail. There is peace with God but often little peace on the earthly side. In fact, the penalty for being a Christian may be that the instigators in martyrdom are one’s own family, as stated in Matthew 10:21, 35–36, where your primary “enemies” may come from “your own household.” Jesus was rejected by his own family during his life and betrayed by a member of his new family, Judas, at his death. Down through history this has happened many times. When I was serving as a student missionary in Pakistan, a missionary from North Africa came through, telling of a recent convert from Islam who was killed when his own wife put ground glass in his supper. She became a hero in the community.

3. Spiritual warfare is real, and Satan is truly bound. Too many Christians believe in their minds that Satan exists yet live their lives as if there is no devil. Regarding Satan, they are pragmatic “atheists”! But in fact, we are engaged in a cosmic war, and the souls of humankind are at stake. Satan is very real, and so are his demonic hordes. They have only one goal: spiritual battle—keeping people from Christ (2 Cor. 4:4) and devouring God’s people (1 Pet. 5:8). Yet this is not even a modified dualism. Satan has already lost, and he knows it (in Rev. 12:12 it is clear that he is now motivated by one thing: frustrated rage; he continues to seek one thing: to cause God and his people as much pain as he can). He was defeated in three stages, when he was cast out of heaven (Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:7–9), during Jesus’s ministry (e.g., Mark 3:27), and at the cross (John 12:31; 16:11). At the eschaton the devil and his angels will be cast into the lake of fire (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 19:20; 20:10, 14). Moreover, the saints have power over Satan and his minions when they depend entirely on Christ (Mark 3:15; 6:7; James 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:9; 1 John 4:4). We are defeated spiritually only when we give in to Satan’s temptations and allow ourselves to be suborned(1 Cor. 10:13; James 1:13–15).

Illustrating the Text

Christians rejected by their families

Biography: There are stories throughout church history of Christians who have been persecuted by their families for their faith. Rev. Khalid Mansoor Soomro is a former Muslim from Pakistan who committed to Christianity in 1985. When he shared his conversion story with his parents, he was turned out of his home and no longer accepted as a family member. Khalid had to choose between Jesus and his family. Andhe chose Jesus. Khalid reflects, “Even though it is not easy and we face many hardships, we feel like Paul, who went through hardships and suffering for the glory of his Savior, who himself suffered during his walk on earth and his time on the cross.”5Would you be willing to identify with Jesus if it meant being rejected by your family? Who really is your first love?

The battle against demonic powers

Nature: A snake can still bite even after its head has been cut off. Snakes have heat-sensitive pits that are capable of detecting a threatening presence even hours after death. Although Satan has already been defeated, he does not act as if he has been defeated and destroyed. The head of the evil one has already been crushed (Gen. 3:15), but he can still create trouble and turmoil in our lives and in the world. We must heed the warnings of Scripture regarding spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10–20) and at the same time remember that “the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4).

The unpardonable sin

Parable: There was a man who went to the store to buy the perfect gift for his son’s birthday. He finds something that he is sure his son will appreciate, but he does not have enough money to buy it. So he sells some of his possessions and even works overtime at his job until he has enough money to purchase the gift. The big day arrives, and he proudly gives his gift to his son. But the gift is not what the son expected, and he rejects it, calling it “junk.” No matter how many times the father offers the gift, the son simply will not receive it. This is a picture of the unpardonable sin.

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

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Bread

Generally made of grain, this staple of foods has been known to be in existence since prehistoric days, being mentioned in the oldest literatures of humanity. Though usually made of wheat, it can be made of any grain and also some kinds of beans or lentils.

To make bread, grain must be ground into flour, mixed with salt and water, kneaded into a dough, and baked. Most breads included a leaven to add substance. As a food staple, it became a symbol of hospitality (Neh. 13:1 2; Matt. 14:15–21) and community as people ate together (Acts 2:42). Bread was considered a gift from God, so it was treated with special deference. Unleavened bread was required during Passover feasts and in most occasions related to the worship of God. The “bread of the Presence” (KJV: “shewbread”), representing the twelve tribes of Israel in the temple, was made of unleavened bread (Exod. 25:30) with special flour and was carefully eaten by the priests.

Jesus used bread in the Lord’s Prayer to represent asking God to meet our basic needs (Matt. 5:11), and he called himself the “bread of life” to show that he is the one who “gives life to the world,” our ultimate sustenance (John 6:33–35). During this exchange with the Jews about the bread of life, Jesus foreshadows what takes place at the Last Supper with his disciples, suggesting that believers must “eat [his] flesh” (represented by bread) and “drink [his] blood” (represented by wine) (John 6:53–59; cf. Luke 22:19). Additionally, bread was used symbolically to represent those things that were present in daily life (Pss. 127:2; 80:5; Prov. 4:17; 20:17).

Demons

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

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

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

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

Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forgiveness

Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings (emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. It is about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costly and painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon” may prove more helpful.

Forgiveness expresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardons sinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, and express this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter of a human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’s loving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arising from their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether done deliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationship with God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy (Eph. 2:1).

Under the Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrath among the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’s forgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance and sacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express true repentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that could purchase God’s forgiveness (1 Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3; Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free, undeserved gift.

Although the sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed, through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognize conditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship, the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke 13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness without consideration of the offending party.

Jesus expresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11 24). The son rebels against his father, squanders his wealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and loving father remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reunion does not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance; then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomes him back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive or not forgive, but, because of God’s nature and mercy, sinners can rest assured of God’s relationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance. The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “as before” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point that the older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifies religious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.

Holy

Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).

With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).

God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).

A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).

While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.

The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1 Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:44 45; Heb. 12:14).

The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).

God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2 Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.

Holy Ghost

For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and the redeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historical acts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, and especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because “God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himself through various images and metaphors.

The OT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used for God, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”), often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“God Almighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who sees me” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive names reveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from the personal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings; thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.

The most prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which is translated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At the burning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moses his personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am” (Exod. 3:13 15). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH” seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh, who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the God who was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’ testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tied to God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life.

Many of God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

The Christian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spirit is one with God (2 Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the same divine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called “Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; 2 Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1 Pet. 1:2), indwelling (John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).

Jerusalem

The central city and capital of ancient Israel. Throughout its history, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the City of David.

The name “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT, particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140 times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’s dealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewed collectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and his sovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’s judgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:1 15; 26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents the hope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8; 60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag. 2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NT authors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms. Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal. 4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of the new covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24). In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the future kingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).

Jerusalem is located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sea level. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expanded and contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are two major ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the Tyropoeon Valley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and north of this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later the temple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, since the only water source is the Gihon spring, located in the Kidron Valley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they were used for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east is the Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by the Kidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central Ridge Route, separated by the Hinnom Valley.

Kingdom

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.

Parables

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

Sin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spirit

In the world of the Bible, a person was viewed as a unity of being with the pervading breath and thus imprint of the loving and holy God. The divine-human relationship consequently is portrayed in the Bible as predominantly spiritual in nature. God is spirit, and humankind may communicate with him in the spiritual realm. The ancients believed in an invisible world of spirits that held most, if not all, reasons for natural events and human actions in the visible world.

The OT writers used the common Hebrew word ruakh (“wind” or “breath”) to describe force and even life from the God of the universe. In its most revealing first instance, God’s ruakh hovered above the waters of the uncreated world (Gen. 1:2). In the next chapter of Genesis a companion word, neshamah (“breath”), is used as God breathed into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life” (2:7). God thus breathed his own image into the first human being. Humankind’s moral obligations in the remainder of the Bible rest on this breathing act of God.

The OT authors often employ ruakh simply to denote air in motion or breath from a person’s mouth. However, special instances of the use of ruakh include references to the very life of a person (Gen. 7:22; Ps. 104:29), an attitude or emotion (Gen. 41:8; Num. 14:24; Ps. 77:3), the negative traits of pride or temper (Ps. 76:12), a generally good disposition (Prov. 11:13; 18:14), the seat of conversion (Ezek. 18:31; 36:26), and determination given by God (2 Chron. 36:22; Hag. 1:14).

The NT authors used the Greek term pneuma to convey the concept of spirit. In the world of the NT, the human spirit was understood as the divine part of human reality as distinct from the material realm. The spirit appears conscious and capable of rejoicing (Luke 1:47). Jesus was described by Luke as growing and becoming “strong in spirit” (1:80). In “spirit” Jesus “knew” what certain teachers of the law were thinking in their hearts (Mark 2:8). Likewise, Jesus “was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” at the sickness of a loved one (John 11:33). At the end of his life, Jesus gave up his spirit (John 19:30).

According to Jesus, the spirit is the place of God’s new covenant work of conversion and worship (John 3:5; 4:24). He declared the human spirit’s dependence on God and ascribed great virtue to those people who were “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3).

Human beings who were possessed by an evil spirit were devalued in Mediterranean society. In various places in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, either Jesus or the disciples were involved in exorcisms of such spirits (Matt. 8:28 33; Mark 1:21–28; 7:24–30; 9:14–29; 5:1–20; 9:17–29; Luke 8:26–33; 9:37–42; Acts 5:16).

The apostle Paul pointed to the spirit as the seat of conversion (Rom. 7:6; 1 Cor. 5:5). He described believers as facing a struggle between flesh and spirit in regard to living a sanctified life (Rom. 8:2–17; Gal. 5:16–17). A contradiction seems apparent in Pauline thinking as he appears to embrace Greek dualistic understanding of body (flesh) and spirit while likewise commanding that “spirit, soul and body be kept blameless” (1 Thess. 5:23). However, the Christian struggle between flesh and Spirit (the Holy Spirit) centers around the believer’s body being dead because of sin but the spirit being alive because of the crucified and resurrected Christ (Rom. 8:10). Believers therefore are encouraged to lead a holistic life, lived in the Spirit.

Direct Matches

Demon Possession

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

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

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

Demonic Possession

Parable

Parables in the Bible

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

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

Table 4. Major Parables of Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

Hidden treasure (Matt. 13:44)

Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46)

Net (Matt. 13:47-50)

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

Unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23-35)

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

Two sons (Matt. 21:28-32)

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

Wedding banquet (Matt. 22:2-14)

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

Ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13)

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

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

Growing seeds (Mark 4:26-29)

Money lender (Luke 7:41-47)

Good Samritan (Luke 10:30-37)

Friend in need (Luke 11:5-8)

Rich fool (Luke 12:16-21)

Unfruitful fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)

Lowest seat (Luke 14:7-14)

Great banquet (Luke 14:16-24)

Cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33)

Lost coin (Luke 15:8-10)

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

Shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8)

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

Persistent widow (Luke 18:2-8)

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

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

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

Purpose of Jesus’ Teaching in Parables

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

Interpretation of Parables

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

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

Details in the Parable and its Allegorical Equivalent:

The man = Adam

Jerusalem = The heavenly city

Jericho = The moon (a symbol of mortality)

The robbers = The devil

Beating the man = Persuading him to sin

Priest and Levite = The Old Testament priesthood

Samaritan = Christ

Binding of wounds = Restraint of sin

Oil = Comfort of hope

Animal = Incarnation

Inn = Church

Innkeeper = Apostle Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sin against the Holy Spirit

A sin described by Jesus as unforgivable (Matt. 12:31–32; Mark 3:28–30; Luke 12:10). While in many ways mysterious, it is identified as blasphemy and involves the conscious and deliberate attribution of the work of God’s Spirit to the power of the devil.

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because Mark 3:20-30 is mentioned in the definition.

Baal-Zebub

A deity of the Philistine city Ekron who appears only in 2 Kings 1:2, 3, 6, 16. “Baal-Zebub” probably means “Baal/Lord of the flies,” but it is possible that the original name of this deity was “Baal-Zebul,” perhaps meaning “Baal the prince.” This possibility finds support in the appearance of a similar name for a god in Ugaritic texts, the presence of the root zbl in the titles of other gods, and in the NT references to Beelzeboul as the name of a demon or prince of the demons (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19). It is likely, therefore, that the author of 2 Kings intentionally changed the name “Baal-Zebul” to the similarly sounding pejorative “Baal-Zebub” for polemical reasons, and that by oral or another textual tradition the original name was remembered in the NT. Not much is known about this specific deity other than that it is one of the many local manifestations of the god Baal.

Crawling Things

The Bible is full of teeming creatures and swarming things. These creatures, insects, often play significant roles in the stories and the events described in them. From the first chapter of the Bible to the very last book, these flying, creeping, hopping, and crawling things are prominent.

Terms for Insects

Insects are described in the Bible with both general and specific terms. In the OT, there are three general terms for insects and twenty terms used to refer to specific types of insects. In the NT, two different types of insects are referenced: gnats and locusts.

The two most common general terms for insects are variously translated. Terms and phrases used to describe them include “living creatures” (Gen. 1:20), “creatures that move along the ground” (Gen. 1:24–26; 6:7, 20; 7:8, 14, 23; 8:17, 19; Lev. 5:2; Ezek. 38:20; Hos. 2:18), that which “moves” (Gen. 9:3), “swarming things” (Lev. 11:10), “flying insects” (Lev. 11:20–21, 23; Deut. 14:19), “creatures” (Lev. 11:43), “crawling things” (Lev. 22:5; Ezek. 8:10), “reptiles” (1 Kings 4:33), “teeming creatures” (Ps. 104:25), “small creatures” (Ps. 148:10), and “sea creatures” (Hab. 1:14). The other general term for insects is used with reference to swarms of insects, typically flies (Exod. 8:21–22, 24, 29; Pss. 78:45; 105:31). Specific insects named in Scripture are listed below.

Ants. Ants are used in Proverbs as an example of and encouragement toward wisdom. In 6:6 ants serve as an example for sluggards to reform their slothful ways. Also, in 30:25 ants serve as an example of creatures that, despite their diminutive size, are wise enough to make advance preparations for the long winter.

Bees. Bees are used both literally and figuratively in Scripture. Judges 14:8 refers to honeybees, the product of which becomes the object of Samson’s riddle. The other three uses of bees in the OT are figurative of swarms of enemies against God’s people (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18).

Fleas. Fleas are referenced in the OT only by David to indicate his insignificance in comparison with King Saul (1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20). The irony of the comparison becomes clear with David’s later ascendancy.

Flies. The plague of flies follows that of gnats on Egypt (Exod. 8:20–31). Although the gnats are never said to have left Egypt, the flies are removed upon Moses’ prayer. In Eccles. 10:1 the stench of dead flies is compared to the impact that folly can have on the wise. In Isa. 7:18 flies represent Egypt being summoned by God as his avenging agents on Judah’s sin. In addition, one of the gods in Ekron was named “Baal-Zebub,” which means “lord of the flies” (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). The reference to Satan in the NT using a similar name is likely an adaptation of the OT god of Ekron (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18–19).

Gnats. Gnats are distinguished from flies in the OT, though the distinction is not always apparent. Gnats are employed by God in the third plague on Egypt (Exod. 8:16–19), while flies form the means of punishment in the fourth plague. The two are listed together in Ps. 105:31 and appear parallel, though the former may be a reference to a swarm. Gnats were also used by Jesus to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the scribes (Matt. 23:24).

Hornets. The Bible uses hornets in Scripture as an agent of God’s destruction. The term occurs three times in the OT. In each occurrence these stinging insects refer to God’s expulsion of the Canaanites from the land that God promised to his people. The first two times, Exod. 23:28 and Deut. 7:20, hornets are used in reference to a promise of what God will do; the third time, Josh. 24:12, they illustrate what God did.

Locusts. Of particular interest is the use of locusts in the Bible. The term or a similar nomenclature occurs close to fifty times in the NIV. Locusts demonstrate a number of characteristics in Scripture. First, they are under God’s control (Exod. 10:13–19). As such, they have no king (Prov. 30:27). They serve God’s purposes. Second, locusts often occur in very large numbers or swarms (Judg. 6:5; Jer. 46:23; Nah. 3:15). At times, their numbers can be so large as to cause darkness in the land (Exod. 10:15). Third, in large numbers these insects have been known to ravage homes, devour the land, devastate fields, and debark trees (Exod. 10:12–15; Deut. 28:38; 1 Kings 8:37; 2 Chron. 7:13; Pss. 78:46; 105:34; Isa. 33:4; Joel 1:4–7). Due to their fierceness, they were compared to horses (Rev. 9:7). Fourth, locusts hide at night (Nah. 3:17). Finally, certain types of locusts were used as food.

Moths. Moths are referred to seven times in the OT and four times in the NT. Job uses moths to illustrate the fragility of the unrighteous before God (4:19) and the impermanence of their labors (27:18). The other references to moths in Scripture present them as the consumers of the wealth (garments) and pride of humankind as a means of God’s judgment (Job 13:28; Ps. 39:11; Isa. 50:9; 51:8; Hos. 5:12; Matt. 6:19–20; Luke 12:33; James 5:2).

Functions of Insects in Scripture

As agents in God’s judgment. Insects serve a variety of functions in Scripture. Most notably, insects serve as agents of judgment from God. The OT indicates how insects were used as judgment on both Israel and their enemies.

Moses warned of God’s judgment for Israel’s violation of the covenant. He advised Israel that as a consequence of their sin, they would expend much labor in the field but harvest little, because the locusts would consume them (Deut. 28:38).

Solomon, in his prayer of dedication at the temple, beseeched God regarding judgment that he might send in the form of grasshoppers to besiege the land. He asked that when the people of God repent and pray, God would hear and forgive (2 Chron. 6:26–30). God similarly responded by promising that when he “command[s] locusts to devour the land” as judgment for sin, and his people humble themselves and pray, he will heal and forgive (2 Chron. 7:13–14; cf. 1 Kings 8:37).

The psalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in their past, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment (Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Joel 1:4 and 2:25 describe God’s judgment on Israel for their unfaithfulness in successive waves of intensity (cf. Deut. 28:38, 42; 2 Chron. 6:28; Amos 4:9–10; 7:1–3). The devastation led to crop failure, famine, destruction of vines and fig trees, and great mourning. The severity of the judgment is described as being unlike anything anyone in the community had ever experienced (Joel 1:2–3).

Locusts are the subject of one of the visions of the prophet Amos. In the vision, God showed him the destructive power of these insects as a means of judgment. Upon seeing the vision, the prophet interceded for the people, and God relented (Amos 7:1–3).

Insects were also used as judgments on Israel’s enemies. In the plagues on Egypt, insects were the agents of the third, fourth, and eighth plagues. The third plague (Exod. 8:16–19) was gnats. Interestingly, this was the first of Moses’ signs that the magicians of Pharaoh could not reproduce. Their response to the Egyptian king was that this must be the “finger of God.” There is no record of the gnats ever leaving Egypt, unlike the other plagues.

The fourth plague was flies (Exod. 8:20–32). Here the Bible specifically indicates a distinction between the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelled, and the rest of the land of Egypt. The flies covered all of Egypt except Goshen. This plague led to Pharaoh’s first offer of compromise. Once Moses prayed and the flies left Egypt, Pharaoh hardened his heart.

The eighth plague was in the form of locusts (Exod. 10:1–20). In response to this plague, Pharaoh’s own officials complained to him, beseeching him to let Israel leave their country lest it be entirely destroyed. The threat of this plague led to Pharaoh’s second offer of compromise. Once the locusts began to devastate the land of Egypt, Pharaoh confessed his sin before God, but as soon as the locusts were removed, his heart again became hardened. Thus, three of the ten plagues on Egypt were in the form of insects.

At the end of a series of “woe” passages, the prophet Isaiah proclaimed God’s judgment against the enemies of his people because of their oppression. In the end, those who plundered will themselves be plundered, as if by a “swarm of locusts” (Isa. 33:1–4; cf. Jer. 51:14, 27).

Insects were also used as judgment on people who dwelled in the land of Israel prior to Israel’s occupation. Both before and after the event took place, the Bible describes how God sent hornets to help drive out the occupants of the land of Canaan in preparation for Israel’s arrival. This is described as part of God’s judgment on these nations for their sins against him (Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20; Josh. 24:12).

As food. Insects also are mentioned in Scripture as food. Certain types of locusts are listed as clean and eligible for consumption. The NT describes the diet of John the Baptist, which consisted of locusts and wild honey—a diet entirely dependent on insects (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). The OT also notes Samson enjoying the labor of bees as food (Judg. 14:8–9).

Used figuratively. Most often, insects are used figuratively in Scripture. They are used in the proverbs of Scripture to illustrate wisdom. The sages wrote about ants (Prov. 6:6; 30:25), locusts (Prov. 30:27), and even dead flies (Eccles. 10:1) both to extol wisdom and to encourage its development in humankind.

Another figurative use of insects is in the riddle about bees and honey posed by Samson to the Philistines (Judg. 14:12–18). As noted above, Samson ate honey (Judg. 14:8–9; cf. 1 Sam. 14:25–29, 43). Also, Scripture describes the promised land as a place of “milk and honey.”

Insects also are used to symbolize pursuing enemies (Deut. 1:44; Ps. 118:12; Isa. 7:18), innumerable forces (Judg. 6:5; 7:12; Ps. 105:34; Jer. 46:23; Joel 2:25), insignificance (Num. 13:33; 1 Sam. 24:14; 26:20; Job 4:19; 27:18; Ps. 109:23; Eccles. 12:5; Isa. 40:22), vulnerability (Job 4:19), God’s incomparable nature (Job 39:20), the brevity of life (Ps. 109:23), wisdom and organization (Prov. 30:27), and an invading army (Isa. 7:18; Jer. 51:14, 27), and they are employed in a taunt against Israel’s enemies (Nah. 3:15–17), a lesson on hypocrisy (Matt. 23:24), and an image of eschatological judgment (Rev. 9:4–11).

Scriptural Truths about Insects

1. Insects are part of God’s creation. In view of all the uses of insects in Scripture, several key truths emerge. First, insects are a part of the totality of God’s creation. The very first chapter of the Bible uses one of the general terms for insects as part of God’s creative activity on the sixth day of creation (Gen. 1:24). After God reviewed the creation on that day, his assessment of it, including the insects, was that it was “good” (1:25).

2. Insects are under God’s control. A second scriptural truth related to insects in the Bible is that they are under God’s control. In Deut. 7:20 God promised to send hornets ahead of the children of Israel to prepare the promised land for their arrival. Also, in Joel 2:25, when God promised to repair the damage to the land caused by the locusts, he described them as “my great army that I sent.” Thus, the picture emerges that what God has created, he alone reserves the authority to control.

3. Insects are cared for by God. A final truth regarding insects in Scripture is that God takes care of them. Just as Jesus explained God’s care for the birds of the air (Matt. 7:26), the psalmist explained that all of God’s creation, specifically insects, “look to you to give them their food at the proper time” (Ps. 104:25–27). The conclusion of the psalmist is appropriate for all of God’s creation: “When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground” (104:29–30). Thus, in the end, God creates, God controls, and God cares—a lesson that all of God’s creation shares.

Excommunication

A form of communal discipline characterized by expulsion from the community of the faithful. Jewish communities practiced excommunication, defined as being cut off from the people of Israel, and it is mentioned in connection with a number of transgressions: eating yeast during Passover (Exod. 12:15), failing to heed the call to return following the exile (Ezra 10:8), performing an improper sacrifice (Lev. 17:8–9), and others. David calls for his enemies to be cut off from the people of Israel (Ps. 109:13). In Jesus’ day, excommunication could take the form of anything from a light censure to death. The Sanhedrin held the power of excommunication in serious cases, but to kill an offender required the authority of the Gentile rulers. Thus, the punishment of death for blasphemy put upon Jesus could not be exercised by the Sanhedrin alone.

Early Christians took their authority to excommunicate wayward members of the church from Jesus’ words that sins against the Holy Spirit are unforgivable and that the apostles have authority to bind and loose (Mark 3:29; Matt. 16:19; 18:18). Both the concept and the practice of cutting off church members from spiritual fellowship for willful moral failures or refusal to abandon incorrect teachings appear throughout the NT (e.g., Matt. 18:15–17; Gal. 1:18; Titus 3:10–11; Heb. 10:28; 2 John 10–11). In Acts 5:1–10, the dramatic story of Ananias and Sapphira, telling lies to the church is specifically designated a sin against the Holy Spirit, and the offenders fall down dead following a pronouncement by Peter. In a different circumstance, Paul calls for the Corinthian church, regarding a sexually immoral person, to “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5). He even forbids members of the Corinthian church from personally associating with a Christian who has been cut off because of sexual immorality (1 Cor. 5:11).

As a rule, excommunication seeks the repentance and ultimate salvation of the one excluded (see James 5:19), while at the same time serving to protect the faithful from unhealthy influences. However, exclusion because of apostasy is stated to be an eternal punishment (Heb. 6:4–6). Excommunication also has a rich history in the Christian church beyond the NT. Heretics who opposed the decisions of the ecumenical councils were formally cursed (proclaimed anathema) and considered to be outside the fellowship of the church. Unfortunately, the process of excommunication sometimes was abused, with corrupt leaders using the threat of exclusion or denial of the sacraments for political purposes. The early Protestant reformers and some of their forerunners were excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church, but they felt that their devotion to orthodoxy, if not the particular form championed by the Roman Catholic Church, rendered the excommunication invalid.

Insects

Terms for Insects

Functions of Insects in Scripture

The psalmist reminded Israel of God’s wonderful works in their past, one of which was his use of insects as a means of his judgment (Ps. 78:45–46; cf. 105:34).

Scriptural Truths about Insects

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.

Miracles

Because Scripture sees all things as providentially arranged and sustained by God’s sovereign power at all times (Heb. 1:3), miracles are not aberrations in an otherwise closed and mechanical universe. Nor are miracles raw demonstrations of divinity designed to overcome prejudice or unbelief and to convince people of the existence of God (Mark 8:11–12). Still less are they clever conjuring tricks involving some kind of deception that can be otherwise explained on a purely scientific basis. Rather, God in his infinite wisdom sometimes does unusual and extraordinary things to call attention to himself and his activity. Miracles are divinely ordained acts of God that dramatically alert us to the presence of his glory and power and advance his saving purposes in redemptive history.

Terminology

The biblical writers describe miracles with various terms, such as “signs,” “wonders,” and “miracles” (or “powers”), which can carry various connotations. As the word “sign” suggests, divine miracles are significant and should cause us to think more deeply about God in a way that goes beyond mere amazement or curiosity (Exod. 4:30–31; John 2:11). Not all of God’s signs are miraculous. Some are given as part of his ordering of the natural world (Gen. 1:14) or as an encouragement to faith that God will do as he has said (e.g., the rainbow in Gen. 9:8–17; the blood of the Passover lamb in Exod. 12:13). (See also Sign.)

Often coupled with signs are “wonders” (Jer. 32:21; John 4:48; 2 Cor. 12:12). If the depiction of miracles as “signs” indicates an appeal to the intellect, that of “wonders” points to the emotions. Miracles evoke astonishment and awe at the one who did them.

The NT word “miracle” carries the meaning of power and therefore points to the supernatural source of these events (Luke 10:13; Acts 8:13).

Miracles in the Bible

Old Testament. In the OT, miracles are not evenly distributed but rather are found in greater number during times of great redemptive significance, such as the exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Miracles were performed also during periods of apostasy, such as in the days of the ninth-century prophets Elijah and Elisha. Common to both of these eras is the powerful demonstration of the superiority of God over pagan deities (Exod. 7–12; 1 Kings 18:20–40).

New Testament. In the NT, miracles often are acts of compassion, but more significantly they attest the exalted status of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22) and the saving power of his word (Heb. 2:3–4). In the Synoptic Gospels, they reveal the coming of God’s kingdom and the conquest of Satan’s dominion (Matt. 8:16–17; 12:22–30; Mark 3:27). They point to the person of Jesus as the promised Messiah of OT Scripture (Matt. 4:23; 11:4–6). John shows a preference for the word “signs,” and his Gospel is structured around them (John 20:30–31). According to John, the signs that Jesus performed were such that only the one who stood in a unique relationship to the Father as the Son of God could do them.

Miracles and faith. Just as entrenched skepticism is injurious to faith, so too is naive credulity, for although signs and wonders witness to God, false prophets also perform them “to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24). Christians are to exercise discernment and not be led astray by such impostors (Matt. 7:15–20).

The relationship between miracles and faith is not as straightforward as sometimes supposed. Miracles do not necessarily produce faith, nor does faith necessarily produce miracles. Miracles were intended to bring about the faith that leads to eternal life (John 20:31), but not all who witnessed them believed (John 10:32). Additionally, Jesus regarded a faith that rested only on the miracle itself as precarious (Mark 8:11–13; John 2:23–25; 4:48), though better than no faith at all (John 10:38). Faith that saves must ultimately find its grounding in the person of Jesus as the Son of God.

It is also clear that although Jesus always encouraged faith in those who came to him for help (Mark 9:23), and that he deliberately limited his miraculous powers in the presence of unbelief (Mark 6:5), many of his miracles were performed on those who did not or could not exercise faith (Matt. 12:22; Mark 1:23–28; 5:1–20; Luke 14:1–4).

The fact that Jesus performed miracles was never an issue; rather, his opponents disputed the source of his power (Mark 3:22). Arguments about his identity were to be settled by appeal not to miracles but to the word of God (Matt. 22:41–46).

The function of miracles. Miracle accounts function in a symbolic and prophetic manner. Hence, the cursing of the fig tree was prophetic of the coming judgment (Mark 11:12–21). The unusual two-stage healing of the blind man of Bethsaida symbolized Peter’s incomplete understanding of Jesus’ messiahship (Mark 8:22–33).

The miraculous element of Jesus’ ministry carries an eschatological significance, pointing to the order of things in the age to come. For example, the nature miracles (Mark 4:35–41) look forward to the redemption of creation itself, which is presently subject to frustration and decay (Rom. 8:20–21); the healing miracles point to a day when disease and deformity will be abolished (Rev. 21:4); and miracles in which the dead are raised to life anticipate a time when death itself will be no more (Rev. 20:14; 21:4). From this perspective, the miracles are a gracious foretaste of a far more glorious future.

Nag Hammadi

A town in Egypt near the location of a 1945 archaeological discovery in which numerous gnostic Christian texts were found, including works such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocryphon of James, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Philip, the Dialogue of the Savior, the Apocalypse of Peter, and many others. Nag Hammadi is located over three hundred miles south of Cairo along the Nile River. A group of Egyptian peasants found thirteen papyrus manuscripts at the base of a cliff, and they contained a total of over fifty different works. Nearly all of these writings are gnostic Christian in nature, though a few, such as Plato’s Republic, are not. The manuscripts, dated to the fourth century AD, are written in Coptic (an Egyptian language, written using an adapted Greek alphabet) and are in codex (book) form. They are currently housed in the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

Gnosticism

Commonly referred to as the Nag Hammadi Library, this group of texts has shed a great deal of light on the early Christian gnostic movements that were present during the second through fourth centuries AD and beyond. While some early church fathers provided commentary and criticism of gnosticism in their own works, the Nag Hammadi discovery has provided the opportunity to see firsthand the writings and thought of this movement, which was branded heretical by many of the earliest Christian leaders.

The term “gnosticism” derives from the Greek word for “knowledge” (gnōsis). Gnostics, then, were those who placed an emphasis on knowledge, often of a secret or hidden nature. Saving knowledge, according to gnostic belief systems, comes by revelation from a transcendent realm. This revelation typically is available through a revealer who comes to show people the true knowledge of God and self, the two of which are often intertwined, since gnostics consider the true self to be of divine origin. Salvation of the self includes returning to the divine world from which it came. Therefore, in Christian versions of gnosticism Jesus is portrayed as the revealer of this hidden knowledge needed for salvation, the returning of the self to its divine origin. The gnostic movement was not confined to Christianity, as gnostics quite often adapted their myths to make them compatible with other religions with which they came into contact.

The Gospel of Thomas

Among the writings found at Nag Hammadi, the Gospel of Thomas is the best known. It contains a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. Unlike the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas contains no narrative material; Jesus performs no miracles or healings, none of his travels are described, and there is no passion or resurrection story. Instead, it contains only a list of Jesus’ sayings, with the occasional reply or question from his disciples. This has led some to conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is similar in genre to the hypothetical Q document, which may have been a source for the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. However, even Q allegedly includes some narrative material (e.g., Matt. 4:1–11 // Luke 4:1–13; Matt. 8:5–13 // Luke 7:1–10).

Many of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas have parallels in the NT Gospels, including the following:

Jesus said, “Often you have desired to hear these sayings that I am speaking to you, and you have no one else from whom to hear them. There will be days when you will seek me and you will not find me.” (Gos. Thom. 38; cf. John 7:32–36)

Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.” (Gos. Thom. 44; cf. Matt. 12:31–32; Mark 3:28–30; Luke 12:10)

Jesus said, “Show me the stone which the builders have rejected. That one is the corner-stone.” (Gos. Thom. 66; cf. Mark 12:10–11)

Because of these similarities, the question has arisen concerning the relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the NT Gospels. Some have suggested that, in fact, the Gospel of Thomas is the earliest of all the Gospels. This claim has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars, who have instead concluded that the Gospel of Thomas reflects a later development of the sayings of Jesus that have been largely shaped out of a desire to reflect gnostic ideas. The strong gnostic theology prevalent in the Gospel of Thomas is on display in, for example, sayings 83 and 84:

Jesus said, “Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father’s light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light.”

Jesus said, “When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!” (Gos. Thom. 83–84)

Apocryphal Gospels and Apocalypses

Other apocryphal Gospels are among the works found at Nag Hammadi. The Gospel of Truth is not of the Gospel genre per se, but rather its title reflects the text’s claim to be telling the “good news” of the salvific work of Jesus, albeit from the perspective of early gnosticism. The Gospel of Philip is concerned primarily with the issue of sacraments within a gnostic understanding of human existence after physical death. In the Gospel of Mary there is a dialogue between the risen Jesus and his disciples, which is followed by Mary Magdalene receiving a special revelation from the Savior.

In addition to Gospels, the Nag Hammadi texts include several apocalypses, including the Apocalypse of Paul, the First Apocalypse of James and the Second Apocalypse of James, the Apocalypse of Adam, and the Apocalypse of Peter. These generally purport to give an account of a revelation seen by a well-known figure, especially an apostle (e.g., Peter, James, Paul). None of these works are considered to be accounts of the actual apostles; rather, they were written pseudonymously.

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

Robbery

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

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

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

Steal

Unpardonable Sin

Jesus refers to an unpardonable or unforgivable sin in the Beelzebul controversy of the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 12:31–32; Mark 3:28–30; Luke 12:10). After Jesus exorcised a demon from a deaf and mute man, the Pharisees charged him with doing this miracle by the power of Beelzebul. Jesus first responded by saying, “If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?” (Matt. 12:26). His point is that it is by the power of the Spirit of God and the kingdom of God that he is able to accomplish this miracle. Jesus follows this statement by saying, “Every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:31–32). In context, the unpardonable sin is attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the power of Satan.

The question that many people ask and fear is whether a Christian can commit the unpardonable sin. The answer seems to be no, in that this was a specific charge against the Pharisees who were attributing the wrong power source to Jesus’ healing. In other words, they were blaspheming the Spirit of God by suggesting that it was by demonic power that Jesus had performed this miracle. Thus, the issue seems to be specific to this historical event rather than a general warning that would continue forever.

Wonders

Terminology

The NT word “miracle” carries the meaning of power and therefore points to the supernatural source of these events (Luke 10:13; Acts 8:13).

Miracles in the Bible

Showing 1 to 50 of319 results

1. The Bell Was Ringing

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

One of my favorite preachers, Clarence Forsberg, tells a story about a man who realized his life-long ambition by going on a safari in Africa.

"He took along his wife, even though she was not the outdoors type. They set up camp in a jungle cleaning, and as he prepared to go out the first day he presented his wife with a little silver bell. He explained, ‘There is really nothing to worry about. I'm not going to be very far away. If you have any trouble at all, just ring this bell, and I'll come right back.' He kissed her goodbye and disappeared into the jungle.

"Five minutes later he heard the bell ring. He dashed back to camp and found his wife seated quite comfortably with a tall cool drink in her hand. He asked what had happened, and she said that she had begun to worry whether he would really be able to hear the bell. She just wanted to try it out. He was patient and explained again that he would be able to hear it. She was not to ring it unless there was a genuine emergency.

"With that he went back to hunting, but five minutes later he heard the bell. When he got back the second time, his wife explained that she had begun to worry whether she'd really be able to reach the bell. She was simply moving it closer, and in the process dropped it. Now he was really annoyed. He explained how much the safari was costing, how he had looked forward to bagging a trophy, and how he really didn't appreciate running back and forth to camp. He didn't want to hear that bell again unless she was in real trouble.

"With that he left for a third time, but five minutes later the bell rang. When he got back to camp, everything was in a shambles. Camp stools were overturned, the tent was torn down, and in the midst of all the debris, he saw his wife's body; half a dozen poison arrows protruding from it, and the little silver bell clutched tightly in her hand. He surveyed the scene and then said, ‘Now that's more like it!'" (Barry Boulware, "The Best of All")

Something like that happened with the friends of Jesus. They were confused. The bell was ringing, the signals were coming. It was obvious Jesus had power. But what was the SOURCE of his power?

2. Have You Ever Tried to Discredit Someone?

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

Isn't there a tendency on our part to try to discredit the experience of others when we are intimidated by their experience? Think about it for a moment. Haven't you ever felt threatened by a close friend, or even a family member, who moved to a new level of Christian commitment, and began to take his or her Christian discipleship more seriously?

Maybe she began to talk more - to witness. You've not heard this sort of language before, not from a person like her, President of the Junior League or the Garden Club. She talks about "being born again" or about prayers being answered in such an explicit manner...and somehow, we feel threatened.

Or, he decides he needs to deepen his involvement with Jesus, and so he goes to serve in the Salvation Army's Soup Kitchen or to help build a home for a poor family. It's so out-of-character with this white-collar executive. He even talks about meeting Jesus in the poor whom he serves! And maybe he even begins to criticize the church for its self-serving attitude and low level of involvement in community issues - like homelessness, hunger, child abuse....

Both of them join a weekly prayer or Bible study group and they love to talk about how they see Jesus changing people's lives, and that's just a bit much! That's taking this "Jesus thing" too far!

You see, our religious neutrality, our middle of the road faith, is threatened "whenever someone we know well takes spiritual commitments seriously and refuses any longer to play hide-and—seek and touch-and-go with the living God." (Carl F. H. Henry, Ibid, p. 149)

So we try to discredit it all. "He's beside himself".

3. A Change in Control

Illustration

Richard J. Fairchild

Last night a friend of mine was talking about his father: he spoke of how, for many years, his father binged out, how his father was a drunkard - a man who when sober was kind and gentle - and when drunk - well he was something else again. He had no control over himself. And this kind and gentle man brought pain and suffering upon others, or at least the force within him did so - the family had to move - to change homes and communities - almost every year - landlords were cheated, employers disappointed, children neglected, friends abandoned - or embarrassed or betrayed.

And this continued on until one day, after taking his children to Sunday School for a period of time, after witnessing the faith of others and what it did for them, he accepted Jesus into his life. He asked God to take control, to guide his actions and save him from his sins and from the power of sin. And then things changed; debts still had to be paid, amends still had to be made, mistakes still occurred. But the inner man - the man that God made - was set free to grow and mature. No more booze, a lot more prayer. And the love and kindness of the man that could be glimpsed before - in the moments of sobriety - became apparent to all - for days, weeks, and finally years on end. The children who were still living at home stopped fearing what would happen next - they began to look forward to being with their father - they began to develop their own faith in God - a faith that still guides them to this day. This man, this father, this husband, experience a change in control - he went from being in the control of the devil to being in the control of God, and the result was the renewal of his inner nature, and in the end, when his earthly tent was destroyed, the result was a building from God - a house not made with hands - eternal in the heavens.

4. When You Are Wrongly Criticized

Illustration

Leonard Sweet

Anyone here like criticism?

How do you respond to criticism?

Does being criticized bring you down or fire you up?

Do you want to hunker in your bunker or lob your own volley of vitriol back at your critics?

Learning how to respond to criticism is a lifetime journey. That's because critics will be accompanying you from cradle to grave!

In every election year there is no shortage of negative, critical remarks flying around the airwaves. Of course all politicians virtuously claim they hate "negative" ads. And, of course, every candidate uses them. The justification for both sides is "Negative ads work." Surveys allegedly show that those nasty, negative, often highly personal attacks are the most effective way of swaying public opinion. Negativity, bad-mouthing, accusatory honking profoundly changes the way we think and the way we act.

In a Charlie Brown cartoon, little brother Linus, looking very forlorn, asks big sister Lucy, "Why are you always so anxious to criticize me?" Lucy, looking very self-righteous, replies, "I just think I have a knack for seeing other people's faults." Linus turns indignant. "What about your own faults?" he asks. "I have a knack for overlooking them," says Lucy.

Unfortunately, those best at hurting and critiquing us are those closest to us. In the gospels Jesus is beset by critics. The first in line? His own family members. In fact they thought he was out of his mind.

5. Outside of Himself

Illustration

Scott Hoezee

As some commentators have pointed out, it appears that it was particularly Jesus' engagement with the demonic that was causing Mary and Jesus' brothers to arch their eyebrows the sharpest. It all seemed a little bizarre to them. In verse 21 they say literally that they had to get him on home because Jesus was exeste, a word meaning to stand outside of yourself. Even today we may refer to a person who is an emotional wreck as being "beside himself" with grief. The idea is that someone has taken leave of his senses (or his senses have taken leave of him) and so what remains for the time being is a person whose emotions are unchecked and unregulated. This is the family's assessment of Jesus.

Apparently all Jesus' talk about invisible kingdoms of God and the casting out of demons led members of his own family to the conclusion that Jesus was seeing things that no one else could see and the reason was simple: he was out of his ever-loving mind! And it does appear that it was especially Jesus' emphasis on the demonic that yielded this opinion because no sooner does Jesus' family accuse him of being mad, and the religious leaders chime in with their own verdict. Because they limit their comments to the demonic, it's a good bet that it was this aspect of Jesus' ministry that was generating the most discussion. In the opinion of the scribes, Jesus was himself a devil. If Jesus seemed to have inside information as to the goings-on in the demonic realm, the explanation was simple and obvious: pulling a page from the old "it takes one to know one" playbook, the religious leaders lambaste Jesus as being himself a demon incognito.

It was a ridiculous thing to say, and finally completely foolish, too. Why would the devil be shooting himself in the foot? What kind of military commander blows up his own tanks? No, if Jesus seems to be plundering the realm of the devil, it's because he had already bound and gagged the devil himself and so now his lesser hosts were easy targets for Jesus. Jesus did his work not because he had the power of the devil but because he had already demonstrated power over the devil.

6. When Perceptions Shift

Illustration

Scott Hoezee

In Mark 3, those who try to turn the work of God into the work of the devil show by so doing that they are so far gone, so deeply enmeshed in a spiritually inverted reality, that there is no reaching them. Some of you will recall the dwarves as depicted by C.S. Lewis in the last book of the Narnia series. The dwarves had been brought by Aslan the Lion into the glories of the New Narnia, which stood for heaven or the kingdom of God. These stubborn dwarves sat smack in the middle of a sunlit meadow full of wildflowers and were being fed fruit and vegetables more exquisitely flavorful and fresh than anyone had ever before imagined was possible.

Yet their minds were darkened, their hearts were cold. And so they were convinced they were sitting in the middle of a stinky old stable being fed moldy bread and cow manure. When one of the other characters asks Aslan what can be done for these hapless figures, the answer comes back that nothing can be done. When black becomes white and white becomes black, when evil is good and good is evil, people are gone. God can't get through to them. The reason the unpardonable sin can never be forgiven is because it will never, ever be recognized as a sin. Even if God came to such people bearing the sweet fragrance of his grace, all these people would smell would be the stink of a rotting corpse. They won't be forgiven because they cannot be forgiven and they cannot be forgiven because they have come to believe that the gospel's elixir of life is strychnine: pure poison.

7. Put God First

Illustration

Kristin Borsgard Wee

Some of us grew up watching the afternoon television program, "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood." Others of us may be reluctant to admit that we sat down with our children and watched it too. I think Mr. Rogers exemplified in a gentle way what Jesus wanted to teach us about love and what it means to value each other. When Mr. Rogers changed into his sweater and took off his shoes, it was a biblical gesture of self-emptying humility and a welcome to all of us in TV land. Then he sang the litany we loved to hear, "It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood, a beautiful day for a neighbor, would you be mine? Could you be mine? Would you be my neighbor?" Even Mr. McFeely, the postal carrier, went around from house to house making a neighborhood out of what would have been a bunch of separate houses divided by hedges and picket fences. The family values we saw in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood were courtesy, kindness, and curiosity. In one episode, Mr. Rogers took us to a sneaker factory where there was an assembly line of workers. He watched one woman working, and he wondered out loud if she ever thought about the people who would wear the shoes she made. The values of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood came right through that television screen and into our family room. That woman making sneakers became my neighbor, as well as the unknown people buying the shoes she made.

You and I may differ on definitions of family and what constitutes family values, but we all know, we can learn something indispensable from Jesus. He teaches us to put God first. When you fall back into the habit of loving flesh and blood more than God, don't worry too much. God is always at work redeeming and expanding our earth-bound loves to make them heaven-sent.

8. Family Values

Illustration

Kristin Borsgard Wee

A newspaper article on family values said that while everyone wants strong family values few can agree on what they are. Soon after this article came out, Roger Rosenblatt was on public radio being cynical about family values. Rosenblatt said that there are plenty of perfect families around like yours and mine. But, there are so many others that fall short, families like the Walker spy family or the Medicis in Italy or the Macbeths of Scotland or the Oedipus Rexes of Greece. Rosenblatt's point was that there is no perfect family and that family values have become so generalized they are meaningless. He said what is valuable in families is that they are normal people struggling to do good and be good, strengthening themselves by listening to each other, paying attention to other families, and encouraging each other to be fair, honest, and kind. Sounds like a decent list of family values to me, and even a single parent can do those things.

Some of us, when we think of family, think of more ordinary things, like clusters of dog hair on clothes and hot dogs with everything smushed in the glove compartment and peanut butter on the television screen and aging grease on the hood over the stove. Whatever your view of the family and its values might be, Jesus wrecks it all. Jesus' words are like answering the doorbell and getting a bucket of ice water in the face.

9. A Harsh Statement

Illustration

Leonard H. Budd

Midway into this confrontation Jesus said a very harsh thing. What did he mean when he said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin?" (Mark 3:28-29) One commentator, Halford E. Luccock, noted that this is one of the things he wishes Jesus had never said.

Jesus' statement has produced hard emotional scars upon some sensitive persons. Not many months ago I had a conversation with a man who was deeply disturbed. He was emotionally sick. He needed professional counseling - much more than I could provide. What he continually talked about was his belief that he had committed that eternal sin, that unpardonable sin. He never shared what it was or what he believed it was. "I just can't speak it," he said. It was a thought that he had held since his youth, and for thinking that terrible thought he believed Jesus was condemning him eternally. The whole gospel message was - for him - focused on that single verse, that single eternal condemnation by Jesus. I worry about how such a phrase is taught to young people, to young lives just forming serious religious understandings. Biblical literalists, from their position of self-confidence, refer to it as if that single verse stands all by itself. That is known as "taking something out of context," or isolating one small part from the rest of a bigger picture. These words are simply a small part of the total confrontation that took place that day between Jesus and the Pharisees.

10. Think What God Can Do with Our Sins

Illustration

James Weekley

M. H. Schubert shares the story about a group of fishermen in the Scottish highlands. They gathered for tea and discussed the day's catch. As a waitress set down a cup of tea, a hand accidently knocked it against the wall. It left an ugly stain. One of the guests got up, went to the wall, and began sketching around the stain with a crayon. What emerged was a stag with magnificent antlers. The man was Sir Edwin Landseer, England's foremost painter of animals. If an artist can transform an unsightly stain into a beautiful masterpiece, think what God can do with our sins. He absolves them and, in their place, refashions us toward full maturity.

11. Johnny Cornflakes Comes to Dinner

Illustration

King Duncan

Timothy George says he never understood the radical nature of Jesus' ministry until it was driven home in a dramatic way. He was in his first year as pastor of the First Baptist Church in, Chelsea, Massachusetts. Chelsea, says George, is one of the most isolated, economically deprived, inner-city sections of greater Boston: there are 27,000 people crowded into less than two square miles. Chelsea is a receptacle for all kinds of dropouts - prostitutes, pimps, drug addicts, all the people who have not "made it" and probably never will.

Every new minister to Chelsea at that time soon became acquainted with one of these drop-outs, an alcoholic known to everyone as Johnny Cornflakes because he often rummaged through the trash, looking through the cereal boxes or whatever to find a bit of food. George's church sometimes gave Johnny Cornflakes food and clothes and tried to see that he had a place to spend the night.

One Sunday after church Timothy George and his wife held their first dinner party in Chelsea for out-of-town guests. They had worked very hard to make everything perfect: they had brought out their best linen and their finest dishes in order to make a good impression. But right in the middle of the main course the front door of the parsonage burst open. Into their dining room in all of his inebriated glory sauntered Johnny Cornflakes. Everyone was startled!

Timothy later wrote that he suddenly knew what the Pharisees must have felt like. "Johnny Cornflakes was someone you'd hand a sandwich to at the back door, someone you'd deliver a CARE package to at the inner-city mission, but definitely not someone you would invite to a Sunday dinner! Yet," George continues, "this is exactly what Jesus did, he invited all the Johnny Cornflakes of Jerusalem to Sunday dinner with the best linen and the finest dishes."

It was because of acts like these that Jesus' family, his mother and other family members, were concerned about him. They thought he was overdoing it a bit. They came to talk some sense into him, and possibly take him with them. We know how that worked out, don't we?

12. Ministry Everywhere

Illustration

King Duncan

Let me tell you about a man named Paige Patterson. Paige's style of ministry and even his theology may not exactly fit ours, but Paige cares about people. Paige ministered to troubled youth in ways that no one else did. He would go to places where youth were, like bars, nightclubs and the streets. At first the people in his church were in shock. This was a new experience and a new ministry for them. But soon they got over their shock and got on board and began a campus ministry to reach out to youth. And the youth responded positively: they liked having people from the church meet them where they were without getting obnoxious.

One night Paige was asked to leave a nightclub because, the manager told him, he was running off his business. Paige says it was no big deal. Anyway, as he stepped out onto the front porch, Paige noticed a big man sitting there with a can of beer in his hand, who was a bouncer for the club. "Looks like it's been a rough night," Paige said casually. The big man nodded and said it indeed had been.

"I don't want to offend you," Paige told him, "but if you died where you're sitting right now, would you be in heaven or hell?" The man instantly crushed the can he was holding, and beer shot everywhere. "I can't believe you asked that question," he said in disbelief. "I was just sitting here thinking how I was going to kill myself when I got home."

"There's no reason to do that," Paige told him, "nothing's that bad." Then Paige began to witness to the man about his faith in Jesus Christ. He told the man that God still loved him. And the two men talked for the next thirty minutes. The next Sunday this man went to church and committed his life to Jesus Christ.

Somehow I can see Jesus doing that kind of ministry if he were with us here physically today. Oh, not just in night clubs. But in offices and in living rooms and at Little League ball games - any place he could be with and get to know people. Jesus cares about people. That means he cares about you and me. Don't be put off by the formality of "church." Look beyond the robes and rituals. Look to a risen Savior who gave his life for only one purpose: people.

Note: Paige Patterson, a prominent Southern Baptist leader, and one time president of the Southern Baptist Convention, was been removed in 2018 from his position as president of a Texas seminary (SBTS) following allegations that he made abusive and demeaning comments to women. He was kept as a president emeritus. The events in the bar story above happened in Patterson's younger years of ministry.

13. Disagreements Happen

Illustration

King Duncan

Somewhere I read a true story about a chairman of a certain church committee who stood one Sunday morning before the congregation to present a minor matter of church business for a vote. After the vote, his next agenda item was to lead the congregation in singing several hymns. He confidently presented his project for a vote, fully expecting routine acceptance by the congregation. But to his surprise, the matter failed to win congregational approval. He was so completely rattled by this surprising turn of events that in introducing the next hymn, instead of inviting the group to join him in singing "I Stand All Amazed," he introduced it as "I Stand All Opposed."

It was an honest slip of the tongue on his part but that was how he was feeling. He felt that everyone in the church was opposed to him personally. That happens in the church. We will disagree. But Heaven help the congregation that gets out the barbed wire and begins erecting it down the center aisle of the sanctuary. "A house divided against itself..."

14. DIPS IN DISCIPLESHIP

Illustration

John H. Krahn

Contrary to what some of you may be thinking, this meditation, "Dips in Discipleship," is not a pejorative way of speaking about certain disciples of Christ. Had that been my intent, I would not have used an outdated term like "dip." We are not talking about dumb people who are out of touch with reality. Rather, I am referring to those times in our lives as Christian disciples when we enter into the valleys of depression. The times when nothing goes right, when thing get so bad that even God seems to have deserted us. We probably all have been through some of these times in our Christian lives. Perhaps some of us have dipped into the valley of depression recently and are still there. There are even times when it seems that the harder we try to do the will of the Lord, the more life gangs up on us and brings disappointment our way. As a result, we sometimes dip into pits of spiritual depression.

Now listen carefully, God deserts no one. God isn’t a problem provider. There is evil in the world that causes dips in discipleship, but there is no evil in God.

Remember the children’s prayer, "God is great, God is good, and we thank him for our food"? That prayer is true. God is great and God is good - there is no evil in God. God is not the author of the dips. Crying out to God, "Why are you doing this to my life?" is dumping your garbage at the wrong doorstep. Rather, curse the Devil, the devisor of dips. Evil causes mental, physical, and spiritual sickness. When we become a disciple of Christ, we can almost guarantee that old evil foe is not going to sit on his thumbs but will put a few dips in the way of our lives.

Although God does not lead us into valleys of despair, he is even present in those valleys. As the psalmist says, "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for thou art with me." Even if we abandon God; he does not abandon us. As C. S. Lewis wrote, "The gates of hell only can be locked from the inside." God is always as close to us as a whispered prayer.

When he told the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus left no doubt that it is the Father’s desire to forgive us and re-enter into a loving relationship even after we have had a dip in discipleship. When all of our best efforts have failed and we realize that we can’t go it alone, through prayer we can invite the Holy Spirit to conquer the evil within us and to reinstate us as a member in good standing of God’s family.

When you are engaged in a particular life crisis, remember the story of David and Goliath. God helped David conquer a very large problem. If your life is calling upon you to stand firm for your principles, remember the time when Luther went to the Diet of Worms. The possibility of death snapped at his heels, but God was with him. He was not alone. Through God, he was also victorious.

15. Preparing the Soil for Unexpected Good

Illustration

Charles Hoffacker

The movie series based on The Lord of the Rings brought to new prominence the author of the books on which it is based, J. R. R. Tolkien. Tolkien was many things: a university professor, a medieval scholar, a writer of fantasy, and a Christian. During the First World War, young Tolkien served in the trenches with the British army, and that experience is said to have had a major impact on his fiction. During World War Two, while Britain struggled against the Axis powers, Tolkien, no longer young, wrote these words to his son Christopher:

"I sometimes feel appalled at the thought of the sum total of human misery all over the world at the present moment: the millions parted, fretting, wasting in unprofitable days quite apart from torture, pain, death, bereavement, injustice. If anguish were visible, almost the whole of this benighted planet would be enveloped in a dense dark vapor, shrouded from the amazed vision of the heavens! And the products of it all will be mainly evil historically considered. But the historic vision is, of course, not the only one. All things and all deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their 'causes' and 'effects.' No man can estimate what is really happening in the light of eternity. All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labors with vast power and perpetual success in vain: preparing the soil for unexpected good to spout in." [I have substituted "in the light of eternity' for Tolkien's Latin phrase sub species aeternitatis.]

Tolkien describes the powerful, successful work of evil as amounting to a preparation of soil, a preparation of soil where unexpected good will sprout. Tolkien talks about soil. Jesus talks about seed. From a solitary seed, Jesus tells us, much fruit will come forth. Unexpected good will sprout.

16. Good and Evil Live Side by Side

Illustration

Thomas C. Short

When I was a youth, I went to the movies, and I always came away from the theater knowing who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. The good guys usually wore fine clothing, rode white horses, used better English, had wholesome faces, and were nicer to their animals. Their saddles were often studded with jeweled stones. Many signs were given to help me understand who was good and who was bad.

Now as an adult, things are not nearly as clear and simplistic. I went to see a movie recently, and it was so complicated that it was several hours before I realized who was good and who was bad. And still I have some doubts about my conclusions.

In this parable, Jesus is telling us that evil is very cunning and shrewd. It is camouflaged so perfectly that we sometimes have difficulty recognizing it. It's not just a matter of knowing who are the good guys and the bad guys on the movie screen, but it is also difficult to differentiate between good and evil in our own lives. Good and evil live side by side and sometimes appear to be identical twins.

17. Parable of the Counterfeit Money

Illustration

"Mother, look what I got," said Jimmy. "A man gave me all these big pieces of money. Now I'm rich. Is it alright if I buy an ice-cream cone for you and me?"

"Let me see that money," said his mother. "I am sorry Jimmy you can't buy anything with this money. It is no longer of any value."

Jimmy said, "You mean it is no good Why? It is even bigger than the money in my bank!"

"It is difficult to tell you Jimmy, but our government didn't make this money and money is not good unless the people that make it stand behind it."

"Gee, that makes me feel bad," said Jimmy. "I thought I was rich."

Learning a proper set of values and backing up one's word with action is an important part of human development. We have noted in public print that some large multi-million dollar business transactions have been sealed with a handclasp.

Jimmy was fooled by the size and the shape of his false money, and adults, too, are often deceived as to the value of stocks and bonds and the value of human activities. Christians learn that the Way to Christ's Kingdom is through His Church and according to His Word and through faith in a Risen Christ. The value of personal faith in God is indicated by how much action backs up the word of the believer. Mankind has great expectancy of those who believe in Christ; and those, who stand at the altar of their Church and vow their allegiance and loyalty in God's service as members, are God's money ready to be spent in Christian causes. Some may be counterfeit in their commitments.

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil; for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

18. Blasphemy Against the Spirit

Illustration

Staff

This statement (Matt 12:32, par Mk. 3:29, Luke 12:10) has been the subject of much questioning. Obviously the reference here is not to the naming of the Holy Spirit in a blasphemous utterance, for in Matt. 12:32 even blasphemy against the Son of man can be forgiven. Among the many attempts at exegesis, the most convincing is the suggestion that the man who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit is he who has recognized that God is working through the Holy Spirit in the actions of Jesus, and who quite consciously "misrepresent faith in God as faith in the devil. This saying is an extremely serious warning against the demonic and scarcely conceivable potential in man: To declare war on God. This is not done in weakness and doubt, but by one who has been overcome by the Holy Spirit and who knows very well on whom he is declaring war" (E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Mark, 1971, 87; cf. H.W. Beyer, TDNT I:624; O.E. Evans, "The Unforgivable Sin", ExpT 68, 1956-57, 240-44). This is the blasphemer who does it deliberately, after encounter with the God of grace, as the context shows. For Jesus has just been accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons. "Therefore he who blasphemes the Spirit is no longer speaking against a God who is distant, about whom he entertains mere foolish thoughts, but against the one who makes evident to him his gracious work, and confirms it with his manifest, divine seal. He is a man who ought to give thanks, not to blaspheme" (A. Schlatter, on Matt. 12:32).

W.L. Lane draws attention to Sifre on Deut. 32:38 (end): "The Holy One, blessed be he, pardons everything else, but on profanation of the Name [i.e. blasphemy] he takes vengeance immediately" (The Gospel of Mark, NLC, 1974, 145) Lane goes on to comment: "This is the danger to which the scribes exposed themselves when they attributed to the agency of Satan the redemption brought by Jesus. The expulsion of demons was a sign of the intrusion of the Kingdom of God. Yet the scribal accusations against Jesus amount to a denial of the power and greatness of the Spirit of God. By assigning the action of Jesus to a demonic origin the scribes betray a perversion of spirit which, in defiance of the truth, chooses to call light darkness. In this historical context, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit denotes the conscious and deliberate rejection of the saving power and grace of God released through Jesus' work and act" (ibid). Thus blasphemy here is much more serious than the taking of the divine name in vain which a believer may have done before coming to repentance and faith.

It may be said to those who have been tormented by fear that they have committed the unforgivable sin that their concern is itself a sign that they have not committed the sin envisaged in Jesus' teaching here. Lane's interpretation also helps to explain the distinction drawn between blasphemy against the Son of man and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The distinction suggests that "while an attack on Jesus' own person, as son of Man and therefore 'hidden', is pardonable, any speaking against the power by which he works (i.e. the divine endowment for his messianic ministry) will not be pardoned" (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 318). For such an action would be deliberately to attribute to Satan the action of God himself. (NIDNTT, v. 3, pp. 343-344)

What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Though many suggestions have been offered, I think the answer lies in the context here (Luke 12:7-12) and in the context of redemptive history. Remember that the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out, and it is the Spirit who causes men to recognize who Jesus is. Hebrews 6 and 10 contain discussions of unforgivable sins, but the distinction between blasphemy against Christ and the Spirit has disappeared. Jesus seemed to be saying this: Because the Holy spirit has not yet been poured out in fullness, the Jews will be forgiven for blaspheming the Son of Man. They will be given a second chance to repent, as we see in the book of Acts. If, however, they continue to blaspheme after the Spirit has come, they will not be forgiven. But what is the sin, specifically? Since it is blasphemy, we must see it essentially as a verbal sin. In context it is the sin of saying that Jesus Christ is of the devil. Jesus was willing to excuse this blasphemy before Pentecost; but, in the new covenant era it is not longer excusable. If a person curses Jesus, but does not really know who Jesus is, that sin is forgivable. But if the Holy Spirit has borne witness to a person that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, and that person curses Him, it cannot be forgiven.

19. MAGICIAN, SORCERER

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. September 11th

Illustration

Bill Bouknight

The atrocity of September 11th was shocking in that many people had never before seen the face of evil so starkly. Is it naïve to hope that some good might come out of that dastardly attack on innocent people? The bible teaches that God is in the business of bringing good out of evil. An Old Testament hero named Joseph was mistreated terribly by his brothers, but God made his suffering productive. Later Joseph said to his brothers, ‘You meant it for evil, but God used it for good.’ Romans 8:28 declares that ‘All things work together for good for them that love the Lord and are trying to fit into his plans.’ The terrorists of September 11th Have discovered that their audacious plan has backfired. They are confronting a unified, determined, and God-honoring America. Therefore, no terrorist is able to rest peacefully. As America fights this noble battle, her own character may be purified and refined.

21. Christ’s Holy Checkmate

Illustration

Eric Ritz

On display in the magnificent Louvre Museum in Paris, France, is that dramatic painting of Goethe's Faust. Faust is seated at a table engaged in a competitive game of chess. And at first glance, it looks like Faust is losing. His opponent in the chess game is Satan. The devil sits there grinning smugly. He thinks he has the victory in hand. He is pointing at the chessboard with an evil leer and he is gloating.

As you look at the painting, you can almost hear the devil shouting: "Checkmate! Game's over! I win!" However, a person with a keen eye who knows the game of chess can see that the match is not over at all. As a matter of fact, just a few years ago, an internationally famous chess player was admiring the painting when all of a sudden he lunged forward and exclaimed: "Wait a minute! Look! Faust has another move and that move will give him the victory!"

The painting is something of a parable for us Christians, because here we see symbolized the good news of Easter. Think of it. When we look at the Cross on Good Friday, it looks (at first glance) like evil has won. It looks like the defeat of righteousness. It looks like goodness is dead and buried forever. It looks like Christ has been silenced and conquered. But then, Easter Sunday morning reveals God's move, the greatest checkmate move of all time. Christ comes out of the grave and into our lives with power and victory.

22. Distract the Christians!

Illustration

Ray Osborne

All too often we miss what God is doing because we are either too busy doing something else or we have a better idea of what God would do. Someone sent the following in an email:

Satan called a worldwide convention. In his opening address to his evil angels, he said,

"We can't keep the Christians from going to church. We can't keep them from reading their Bibles and knowing the truth. We can't even keep them from forming an intimate, abiding relationship experience in Christ. If they gain that connection with Jesus, our power over them is broken. So let them go to church, let them have their conservative lifestyles, but steal their time, so they can't gain that experience in Jesus Christ. This is what I want you to do, angels. Distract them from gaining hold of their Savior and maintaining that vital connection throughout their day!"

"How shall we do this?" shouted his angels. "Keep them busy in the nonessentials of life and invent innumerable schemes to occupy their minds, "he answered. "Tempt them to spend, spend, spend, and borrow, borrow, borrow. Persuade them to work for long hours, to work 6-7 days a week, 10-12 hours a day, so they can afford their lifestyles. Keep them from spending time with their children. As their family fragments, soon, their home will offer no escape from the pressures of work."

"Over stimulate their minds so that they cannot hear that still small voice. Entice them to play the radio or cassette player whenever they drive. To keep the TV, VCR CDs and their PCs going constantly in their homes. And see to it that every store and restaurant in the world plays non-biblical music constantly. This will jam their minds and break that union with Christ."

"Fill the coffee table with magazines and newspapers. Pound their minds with the news 24 hours a day. Invade their driving moments with billboards.

Flood their mailboxes with junk mail, sweepstakes, mail order catalogues, and every kind of newsletter and promotional offering free products, services, and false hopes."

"Even in their recreation, let them be excessive. Have them return from their recreation exhausted, disquieted, and unprepared for the coming week.

Don't let them go out in nature to reflect on God's wonders. Send them to amusement parks, sporting events, concerts and movies instead."

And when they meet for spiritual fellowship, involve them in gossip and small talk so that they leave with troubled consciences and unsettled emotion."

"Let them be involved in soul-winning. But crowd their lives with so many good causes they have no time to seek power from Christ. Soon they will be working in their own strength, sacrificing their health and family for the good of the cause."

It was quite a convention in the end. And the evil angels went eagerly to their assignments causing Christians everywhere to get busy, busy, busy and rush here and there.

Has the devil been successful at his scheme? You be the JUDGE.

23. Romanticizing the Cross

Illustration

When we view the cross I think that somehow we must learn to see our complicity in it. We cannot dismiss this as an act by self-righteous Jews and brutal Romans. We must somehow understand the horrible fact that Satan sometimes uses religious people to accomplish his means. We distort things and before long we call evil good and good evil. Every time we allow sin to seduce us with its distortions, we nail Jesus on the cross once again.

There is an old episode of MASH, in which a rather cocky young pilot comes to the MASH unit because his plane has been shot down, but he is not seriously injured. He tells everyone in a rather boasting voice that flying really gives him a high. If I could not fly this war would really be a drag, he says. He brags that every time he flies a couple of missions they send him back to Japan for several weeks of R & R. The war to him was really quite a lark.

Then one day a Korean child is brought to the MASH unit and her arm has been horribly mangled in an air attack. The young pilot is taken back. Even though it was not his plane that did it, for the first time he must face his own complicity in the brutality of war. For the first time he sees things not from the perspective of 10,000 feet, but in the eyes of a child.

There is a danger in romanticizing the cross. I love the old hymns about the cross just as much as anyone. But the cross is not meant to lull us, it is meant to jolt us.

24. 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.

25. ADJUSTABLE JUSTICE?

Illustration

G. William Genszler

Saint Paul reminds us that we ought to pray, make intercession for, and thank God for all those in authority, "so that our common life can be lived in peace and quiet." He reminds us that "those in authority are given this authority from God for the maintenance of law and order and for the punishment of evil doers." If we pray for good government, good law and order, and good schools, we must be willing to play our part as responsible citizens to stand by and support these activities. Much of the terrible lawlessness that imperils our nation is not due to lack of efficiency of our law officers. It is due to the chicken-livered foolishness and perverted sense of values so many ordinary citizens have with regard to their duty to help maintain order.

How many people will swear out a warrant when evil has been committed, or how many people will report a civil offense when they witness such an act? Yet, let those same people become a victim of foul play and they will be the first to critize those in authority. People who aren’t concerned with justice, deserve very little mercy. Never forget that the police officer, the judge, the government official, yes, even the school teacher can only be as good and efficient as you and I make it possible for them to be.

26. People of the Lie

Illustration

M. Scott Peck

M. Scott Peck wrote his book, People of the Lie, about those who appear virtuous but are in fact evil. Ironically, he says they are utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They worry about this a great deal. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others might think of them…They dress well, go to work on time, pay their taxes, and outwardly seem to live lives that are above reproach.

The words "image," "appearance," and "outwardly" are crucial to understanding the morality of the evil. While they seem to lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their "goodness" is all on a level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. That is why they are the "people of the lie."

Actually, the lie is designed not so much to deceive others as to deceive themselves. They cannot or will not tolerate the pain of self-reproach.

27. You Have Judged Yourself

Illustration

Brian Stoffregen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28. Living with the Consequences

Illustration

Larry Powell

I suppose it would have been a far easier, more convenient thing for God to have created robots instead of offspring capable of making choices. If Adam and Eve had not been cognizant, thinking individuals with the ability of choosing, the Garden of Eden would probably still be in full flower. If Absolom had been a puppet, history would surely remember him as something other than a long-haired renegade son. If Jonah had not had a choice, there would be no story of Jonah and the "great fish." If Christ had not had a choice, the Cross would be reduced to a foreordained act of brutal cosmic drama. If we had no choice, there would be no such thing as sin, for we could not responsibly do either good or bad. However, God loved humanity enough, trusted it enough, to bless it with choice. The blessing appears at times to be a curse. Even Paul lamented, "For the good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do" (Romans 7:19).

None of us need to be reminded that our choices are accompanied by consequences. Sometimes the passing of time is required, but we inevitably get the message. Our greed for quick crops several decades ago resulted in overplanting. The consequence, as we know, was the Dust Bowl. Many manufacturers have chosen to have a greater regard for profits than for properly caring for the waste and pollution created by factories and plants. The consequence has been that our lungs and atmosphere, streams and wildlife are paying the price for that choice. Our military chose to broadcast "Agent Orange" (a toxic herbicide) over millions of acres in Vietnam as a defoliant during the war. The consequence was not only that vegetation was defoliated, but it is now believed to be responsible for deaths, genetic mutations, cancer, and other diseases among our own veterans. Americans continue to choose a lifestyle which requires far more than our share of world resources.

The consequence is poor stewardship on the one hand and resentment from other countries on the other.

God could have made it much easier on himself had he created robots, but he trusted us enough to give us a choice. The consequence is, we have made some bad choices.

In verse 15 of our text, the alternatives are set before Israel: "I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil." The consequence is told in verse 16: "If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God ... by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments ... then shall you live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land."

Moses asked Israel to choose. The choice sounds familiar, as does the consequence.

29. Pulling Weeds - Sermon Starter

Illustration

King Duncan

Last week we talked about planting seeds. This week we're talking about pulling weeds. The two go together. Every gardener knows that planting seeds is the easy part of having a successful garden. It is much more time consuming to weed that same garden. And it's hard work. As someone has said: "When weeding, the best way to make sure you are removing a weed and not a valuable plant is to pull on it. If it comes out of the ground easily, it is a valuable plant."

There is a corollary to that truth: "To distinguish flowers from weeds, simply pull up everything. What grows back is weeds."

Some of you can relate to one unknown homemaker who wrote: I don't do windows because . . . I love birds and don't want one to run into a clean window and get hurt. I don't wax floors because . . . I am terrified a guest will slip and get hurt then I'll feel terrible (plus they may sue me.)I don't disturb cobwebs because . . . I want every creature to have a home of their own. I don't Spring Clean because . . . I love all the seasons and don't want the others to get jealous. I don't put things away because . . . my husband will never be able to find them again. I don't do gourmet meals when I entertain because . . . I don't want my guests to stress out over what to make when they invite me over for dinner. I don't iron because . . . I choose to believe them when they say "Permanent Press." And finally: I don't pull weeds in the garden because . . . I don't want to get in God's way, He is an excellent designer!

I doubt than anyone likes pulling weeds, including God. In today's lesson Jesus tells a parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

"The owner's servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

"‘An enemy did this,' he replied.

"The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

"‘No,' he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"

Then Jesus left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."

Jesus answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

On its surface, there is not much to be said about this parable except make sure you're not a weed…

1. Pulling Weeds Is an Important Part of a Successful Life.
2. God Is Our Savior.
3. God Wants to Save Us from Sin.

30. Everybody Wants to Be Somebody

Illustration

Kenneth L. Carder

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

31. God Is With Me

Illustration

Maxwell Perkins

Maxwell Perkins, the famous book editor, once wrote, "One of my deepest convictions is that the terrible harms that are done in this world are not done by deliberately evil people, who are not numerous and are soon found out. They are done by the good by those who are so sure that God is with them. Nothing can stop them, for they are certain that they are right.

32. Say Yes by Saying No

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

Have you ever realized that the best way to say yes to something is to say no to its counterpart?

There is an interesting expression of it in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul said, “Do not get drunk with wine, which will only ruin you; instead be filled with the Spirit. (Ephesians 5:18, TEV)

It works! You can eliminate the negative by accentuating the positive. The best way to get rid of a bad habit is to replace it with a good one.

William Glasser wrote a book on this dynamic which he called “positive addiction.”

What are some things to which you might become positively addicted?

physical exercise
good eating habits
deliberate unselfishness
refusing to repay evil with evil
holding back rather than jumping to conclusions
refusing to believe the worst by holding to the best

It’s a good discipline -- learning to say yes by saying no.

33. Setting the Prisoners Free

Illustration

Brett Blair

No greater image of oppression and captivity exist today than that of World War II's Nazi concentration camps. Elie Wiesel, a teenager then, witnessed the death of many family members. He recalls the day when he, as well as the other prisoners, were finally liberated from Auschwitz by the allies. On that day powerful, strong soldiers broke down the fences of the concentration camp to release the prisoners. Frail, feeble, gaunt, and near death they were terrible victims of a horrible criminal evil.

In spite of his condition Wiesel remembers one solider, a strong black man who upon seeing the horror of human suffering was overcome with grief. He fell to his knees sobbing in a mix of disbelief and sorrow. The captives, now liberated, walked over to the soldier, put their arms around him, and offered comfort to him.

I can't help but wonder what it is that Jesus saw on that day he began his ministry. Looking out at those gathered in the synagogue, just as I am looking out at you this morning, as near as I can figure, he saw the same thing that strong black soldier saw: Terrible victims of a horrible criminal evil. Now this is no complement! Listen to his words: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor, he has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free.

We don't like to think of ourselves as victims of sin. But evil, in a manner of speaking, has had its own way with us and when Jesus arrived on the scene ready to liberate us prisoners I am sure he was over come with grief.

(If this is used as a sermon ender then finish with the line: The good news is that our Ally has Arrived. Amen!)

34. The Benediction

Illustration

Susan R. Andrews

A well-to-do woman who is a member of Bryn Mawr Presbyterian church in Pennsylvania was asked why she came to church. She said, "I come to worship to pray and to sing and to listen. But most of all, I come for the benediction. Because that is the moment that I am reminded who I am. That is the moment when, one more time, I am pushed by God out into the world to be the very presence of Christ." This is the benediction which is used every week at the Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church:

Go out into the world in peace;
have courage;
hold onto what is good;
return no one evil for evil;
strengthen the fainthearted;
support the weak, and help the suffering;
honor all people;
love and serve the Lord,
rejoicing in the power of the Holy Spirit.

This, of course, is just an elegant way of echoing John's very tough, very good news: "Repent! for the kingdom of God is at hand."

35. The Devil Made Me Do It

Illustration

Michael Horton

As I mentioned earlier, the faith teachers maintain that when Adam sinned, the world was turned over to Satan. The devil became the legal owner of the planet. The faith teacher's position accommodates the Gnostic view (particularly evident in Zoroastrianism, a Persian Gnostic religion), in which a good god rules the spiritual world and a bad god rules the physical realm. In such a philosophy the problem of evil is solved by blaming everything that goes wrong on the bad god (the devil); the good god is seen as no more than a counterbalance. One is left with the impression that the two gods each possess equal power both in quality and quantity. Everything that is wrong in the world is the fault of the bad god. And it's up to the initiate or believer to make sure the good god wins. Back when Jimmy Swaggart defied the orders of the Assemblies of God to refrain from preaching for one year, he assured the public that he was free of moral defect, for, he said, Oral Roberts had cast out the demons from his body over the phone. Oral Roberts confirmed Swaggart's report, insisting he had demons and their claws deeply embedded in Swaggart's flesh. Now that the rascals were gone, Swaggart and Roberts asserted, Swaggart could get on with preparing the way for Christ's return. Evidently, personal responsibility for sin can be dismissed by blaming it on an external force. Yet Flip Wilson's famous quip, "The devil made me do it" is hardly comedy when we're talking about the biblical view of sin.

For these metaphysical evangelists, even personal sins can be attributed to the bad god, since he is, after all, sovereign over this earthly realm as the good god is relatively in charge of the spiritual domain. Here again, then, is the echo of the Gnostics of old. When that heresy was revived toward the end of the medieval period, Calvin said, "They made the devil almost the equal of God." In this way, the problem of sin is replaced with the problem of Satan. It is facing Satan, not my own sin and rebelliousness, that becomes the great task of the Christian life. I'm not the problem the Devil is!

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

Illustration

Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

37. A Good Word for The Pharisees

Illustration

Jirair Tashjian

It may come as a surprise to Christian listeners, who are used to thinking of Pharisees as hypocrites and enemies of Jesus, that in this passage it is Pharisees who warn Jesus to flee from Galilee because Herod wants to kill him. Not all Pharisees were hostile to Jesus. While Jesus and the Pharisees did not see things eye to eye, we find in Luke and Acts that Pharisees are often in the company of Jesus and not always antagonistic. Jesus is often invited to the home of a Pharisee for dinner (Luke 7:36, 11:37; 14:1). In Acts 5:33-39, when the Jewish Sanhedrin wanted to kill the apostles, a well-known Pharisee, Gamaliel, counsels them to be careful how they treat these men. If the undertaking of the apostles is of human origin, Gamaliel says, it will fail; "but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them in that case you may even be found fighting against God!" Some Pharisees had even become Christians (Acts 15:5). And of course we know that Paul himself was a Pharisee. In fact, in his defense before the Sanhedrin he uses the present tense and says, "I am a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6).

38. Limiting Labels

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

In his novel The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald penned a sentence that begged serious reflection: “Reserving judgment is a matter of infinite hope.”

One of the most common and destructive ways we judge is to put people in boxes by pinning them with labels.

As a young preacher in Mississippi in the early ‘60s, I was labeled a liberal because of my stand on civil rights. When I left Mississippi and moved to southern California, I was soon labeled a conservative because I was evangelistic in my preaching and had a southern accent.

In both instances the labels were limiting. People heard me out of their own preconceptions of who I was and what I stood for.

When we reserve judgment, we’re saying, “There’s more to you than I now perceive. I will wait and be patient. I will seek to see clearly. I will not limit you with a label.”

Fitzgerald is right. “Reserving judgment is a matter of infinite hope.”

39. Temptation vs. Trial

Illustration

Fairbain

What is temptation? Seduction to evil, solicitation to wrong. It stands distinguished from trial thus: trial tests, seeks to discover the man's moral qualities or character; but temptation persuades to evil, deludes, that it may ruin. The one means to undeceive, the other to deceive. The one aims at the man's good, making him conscious of his true moral self; but the other at his evil, leading him more or less unconsciously into sin. God tries; Satan tempts.

40. Satan's Strategy Session

Illustration

Michael P. Green

The story is told of a time when Satan held a strategy session for subverting those who were close to salvation. “What shall we do?” asked Satan. A daring demon stood and shouted, “I have it! I know what we can do! We can tell men that there is no life after death, that they die like animals.” Satan’s face fell as he answered, “It will never work. Man is not ignorant; even atheists admit of times when they sense a tomorrow after death.”

Another demon spoke, “Here’s the solution! Let’s say there is no God or if there ever was, he is dead—because even if he started the universe, he has left it now.” Satan replied in dismay, “That won’t work either; most of them know there is a God, even though they don’t seek him.”

Other ideas were presented, but none brought hope to Satan and his underlings. Finally, as they were about to give up, one demon leaped in glee, “I have it! A sure solution!” The other demons crowded around to hear the plan. “Go tell them that God is real and the Bible is God’s Word.” A gasp came from the audience as the demon continued, “And tell them that Jesus is God’s Son and frees men from sin.” The other demons were horror-stricken, thinking that their associate had gone bananas, until, with a smile, he added, “Then tell them that this is not the best time to choose Christ. Help them make excuses for delaying their decision. Tell them there is no hurry!” The demons danced in delight, realizing a workable plan had been discovered.

41. Waiting until Harvest Time

Illustration

Thomas Lane Butts

When Dr. Harold Bosley was pastor of Christ Church in New York City, he preached a sermon entitled, "Shall We Be Patient with Evil?" He pointed out how during the Civil War everything was crystal clear on both sides, if you could judge by what was being said. He then told of an experience he had while visiting a museum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania where there is a huge painting of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. In front of him was a mother with two small sons who were asking questions.

"Who were the good guys and who were the bad guys?" one of the boys asked.

The mother replied softly, "It is hard to tell." The child asked why they were trying to kill each other. The mother patiently tried to explain about slavery and the other issues.

"Did they have to fight?" the lad asked.

Her answer was classic. "They thought so," she said.

Dr. Bosley pointed out: "There was in that reply the gentleness distilled in the interval of a hundred years."

Socrates once observed: "He who takes only a few things into account finds it easy to pronounce judgment." Be patient! Wait until harvest time.

42. How Life's Pressures Affect Good Judgment - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

In the opera Faust, there is a fight to the finish between Satan and the young man Valentine. During the course of the fight, Satan breaks Valentine's sword and he stands poised to slay him. But the young boy takes the two pieces of his sword and fashions them into a cross. Confronted with this symbol of faith, Satan becomes immobilized and Valentine is saved.

It is an interesting concept: A dramatic demonstration of faith. Unfortunately such resolution of faith does not always save you. In fact, it might be your deathbed. It was John's. Take a look at the story with me. John has been arrested by King Herod. And why? Because John kept reminding Herod that even the king is not above the law. He said, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife."

So this was the king's egregious sin. He had stolen his brother's wife, Herodias. Now, it would be understandable if this were where the story ended. The king didn't like a desert preacher calling him a sinner so he had him beheaded. Simple enough. But life is not always simple. There is usually more to a story than meets the eye. And in this case we learn that Herod actually liked to listen to John, thought he was a holy man, and protected him. Perhaps, in Herod's mind, putting him under lock and key was a way of removing him from harms way.

So if the king was offended by John's outbursts, it was not enough to warrant death. The king feared the prophet and dared not harm him. But life has a funny way of pressuring us to do things we would not normally do. This is a story about a man who caved due to social pressures. Let me ask you: How do life's pressures affect your judgment? What can we learn form this deplorable moment in the life of this king, this moment when the king caved? We learn that...

1. Puzzling problems require conscientious decisions
2. Promises made in haste create great waste
3. Pressures in life can affect good judgment

43. Thought for Reformation Sunday

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

Martin Luther had a dream in which he stood on the day of judgment before God Himself and Satan was there to accuse him. When Satan opened his books full of accusations, he pointed to transgression after transgression of which Luther was guilty. As the proceedings went on, Luther's heart sunk in despair. Then he remembered the cross of Christ, and turning upon Satan, he said, "There is one entry which you have not made, Satan."

The Devil retorted, "What is that?"

And Luther answered, "It is this—the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sins."

44. The Lure of the Easy Way - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

I like the story of the young man, eager to make it to the top, who went to a well-known millionaire businessman and asked him the first reason for his success. The businessman answered without hesitation, "Hard work." After a lengthy pause the young man asked, "What is the SECOND reason?"

We want to deal this morning with the lure of the easy way. Jesus and His disciples were at Caesarea Philippi. Their ministry to this point had been a stunning success. Crowds pressed in on them everywhere they went. People eagerly reached out to touch this attractive young teacher from Nazareth. The disciples themselves were caught up in the excitement of it all. Jesus asked them, "Who do you say I am?" and Simon Peter answered enthusiastically, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" It was one of the most dramatic moments in the disciples' pilgrimage with Jesus.

Then Jesus changed the subject. He began to tell them that the crowds would soon turn against Him; He would be crucified, on the third day he would be raised. The disciples didn't know what to make of all this. Simon Peter took Jesus aside: "Forbid it, Lord, that these things should happen to you." Jesus' response to Simon Peter is as harsh as any words in the New Testament: "Get behind me Satan! You are not on the side of God but of man."

Perhaps Jesus called Simon Peter ‘Satan' because of Jesus' experience in the wilderness immediately after His baptism by John. In today's parlance, it was there that Satan revealed to Jesus the way to make a million dollars in three easy steps turn stones to bread, leap off the pinnacle of the temple, "Bow down and worship me!" I see Satan not as a red caped figure with a pitchfork but dressed in a $400 suit and offering in a glib and polished tongue instant success, instant glamour, instant gratification. We can see Satan almost anywhere today. Jesus encountered him this time in Simon Peter: "Forbid it, Lord, that you should have to suffer and die."

If there is any doubt that Jesus is resisting the lure of the easy way, listen to the words that follow: "If any man would be my disciple, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

We are the devotees of the easy way even though everyone in this room knows two important truths.

1. The Path to Personal Success Is that of Self-Denial.

2. Self-Denial Is Essential to the Salvation of the World.

45. ARE CHRISTIANS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES?

Illustration

John H. Krahn

Are Christians an endangered species? This is really not the most pleasant question to consider. But at some time or another I would imagine we have all thought about it.

Faced with an uncomfortable question, we find comfort and assurance in God’s Word. Speaking of Jesus, in John 1:5 (GNB) it says, "His life is the light that shines through the darkness - and the darkness can never extinguish it." Never, it says. The power of God’s light can never be extinguished. The good news about Jesus will always be good news. Sin will have its triumphs, but it never will completely prevail.

Most of the danger to Christianity does not come from the outside but from within. I would like to consider with you three of the dangers from within referring to them as Christianity’s sin from within.

There is the endangering problem of self-centeredness or the S of sin from within. Often we get so caught up with our own church or our own denomination that our world view of Christianity doesn’t go much beyond our congregation’s front door. In our quest to preserve our peculiar understanding of Scripture, we often fail to bask in the good news of a Christ who stands at the center of Scripture. The New Testament abounds with encouragement for us to be one with each other - to rejoice in that which unites us in the Body of Christ rather than to dwell upon our theological idiosyncrasies. It is incompatible with Christianity for us to separate ourselves from other Christians in order to do just our own thing. We are going to spend our eternity with all these people. The time to get acquainted and work together is now.

Another aspect of the problem is inhibited love. Inhibited love is the I of the sin from within. There is no virtue in loving someone who is lovable. Anyone can do that - even non-believers. There is no virtue in loving someone with whom we agree, that is almost like loving ourself. Jesus said, "If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even scoundrels do that much." But there is virtue in uninhibited, unconditional love. We are called by Jesus to embrace with forgiving love a brother or sister who has disappointed or even offended us. Forgiveness flows in a church when the Spirit of God resides in its members. Love that flows freely is the love that Jesus spoke about when he said, "Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you. In that way you will be acting as true sons of your Father in heaven."

The final sin from within, represented by the N in sin, is nonchalance. Too many of us take our Christianity too casually - with nonchalance. Saint Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, encourages us to put on God’s armour so that we will be able to stand safe against all the strategies and tricks of Satan. We are encouraged to use every piece of God’s armor available to us.

Self-centeredness, inhibited love, and nonchalance - three sins from within that endanger Christianity. And so we return to our question, "Are Christians an endangered species?" Some are and some are not. Although we have the promise of God that the light will never go completely out, our task together with the total church is to make sure we shine brightly. We continue to do battle with the forces of evil from both without and from within. To plan to do less is to risk joining the list of endangered species.

46. The Light Has Come

Illustration

John E. Sumwalt

Have you ever sat in a lighted room at night, reading or talking, and suddenly the lights go out? What's the first thing you say? Usually everyone says, "Who turned out the light?"

In this age of electricity, light is something we take for granted. Few of us ever experience total darkness. In the city, we have street lights which come on automatically as soon as it begins to get dark. In the country, most farms have a mercury vapor light that stays on all night for security reasons. Consequently, most of us never get a good look at the stars as we used to when all the lights went out at night.

If you ever get the chance to go out in the desert at night do it. The darkness on nights with no moon or star light is so total someone could be standing right next to you and you wouldn't know it.

This text from John's gospel is about darkness and light: "And this is the judgment," John says, "that the light has come into the world and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil."

47. The Moral Character of God

Illustration

James Packer

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

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

48. What Is Caesar’s and What Is God's? - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

A young lady was soaking up the sun's rays on a Florida beach when a little boy in his swimming trunks, carrying a towel, came up to her and asked her, "Do you believe in God?" She was surprised by the question but she replied, "Why, yes, I do." Then he asked her: "Do you go to church every Sunday?" Again, her answer was "Yes!" He then asked: "Do you read your Bible and pray everyday?" Again she said, "Yes!" By now her curiosity was very much aroused. The little lad sighed with relief and said, "Will you hold my quarter while I go in swimming?"

The little boy was straightforward and honest in his questions because he wanted to entrust to the lady something valuable. The Pharisees are not being honest. They have no intent in entrusting Jesus with anything. They are not looking for the answer to a question. They don't want someone to hold their quarter. They are looking for a way to get rid of this trouble making Nazarene named Jesus.

The Pharisees were so angry it blinded them. Think for a moment about the ironies here: We know, because we live on this side of the resurrection, that Jesus was God. They thought he was demonic, an agent of Satan. We know that Jesus is the King of kings. They thought he wanted to be the King of Israel. We know that he was the Son of God. They thought he was simply Joseph and Mary's son. We know that Jesus has influenced the world for 2000 years. They thought his influence would end at the cross.

It's a fascinating story. We look at the Pharisees and we shake our heads. How could they have been so wrong when the truth was standing right in front of them? I believe they were upset because Jesus held them accountable and exposed their hypocrisy. "Teacher, we know that you are sincere," they say to him, "and teach the way of God." Not for a moment did they believe in Jesus' sincerity. It was a set up. It was a way of putting him at ease before they stabbed him in the back. Tell us then, they continue, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor?

I suppose we ought to be grateful to the Pharisees. In their question, which Jesus says was motivated by malice, they prompt one of the greatest of Jesus' teachings. It may not seem like much on the face of it, but the implications of this teaching have echoed through the centuries and they have shaped western societies. Jesus said, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." Let us ask three questions this morning and find out why this little teaching has had such a great influence.

1. What Is Caesar's?
2. What Is God's?
3. Which Will You Choose?

49. The Attitude of Readiness

Illustration

Russell F. Anderson

At the time of this writing, the tornado season has commenced. Several communities have been devastated by the devil twisters. Nothing can stop them, but if you know they are heading your way you can, at least, save your life, together with those you love. Several people have lost their lives because they weren't prepared. Tornadoes can be tracked on Doppler radar. If warning is issued, heard and heeded, it can save life. If our ears are tuned to God's warnings, we won't be blotted out by the moral disaster that swoop down on the unsuspecting. Of course, we need to be ready not only to avert the whirlwinds of judgment but to inspire the life-giving gusts from the Spirit of God.

In August 1993, hundreds of thousands of young people gathered at the Roman Catholic youth festival in Denver, Colorado. The big draw was Pope John Paul. One priest from Omaha, in charge of a bus load of kids, was left behind. He directed a bunch of the youth to go to the bus, while he searched for the rest of his group. The missing teens found their way to the bus but when the youths' shepherd arrived at the place of departure the bus had already pulled out. Not only evil things but even good pursuits can prevent us from our appointed meeting with the Lord. If you're not ready, for whatever reason, you get left behind. That's the point of the gospel lesson. Christ is coming to take home all who belong to him; be prepared and ready to go.

50. Devil Descriptions

Illustration

Merrill F. Unger

Possible Biblical references to Satan:

Genesis 3:1-14 · He was disguised under the Edenic serpent
Genesis 3:15 · He is the serpent's seed
1 Chronicles 21:1 · Satan stands against Israel
Job 1:7-2:10 · He accused and afflicted Job
Isaiah 14:12 · He was Lucifer, son of the morning before the fall (This verse is erroneously ascribed to Satan. It actually refers to the king of Babylon, see v. 3)
Ezekiel 28:14 · He was the anointed cherub that covers (This verse also is erroneously ascribed to Satan. It actually refers to the king of Tyre, see v. 1)
Zecheriah 3:1-9 · He is Satan, the Adversary of unbelieving Israel
Matthew 4:3 · He is the tempter
Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:10-11 · He perverts the Word of God
Matthew 12:22-29 · He works in demon possession
Matthew 12:24; Acts 10:38 · He is the prince of the demons
Matthew 13:19 · Snatches away the Word
Matthew 13:38 · "the evil one"
Matthew 13:38-39 · He sows tares
Matthew 13:39 · He is "the enemy"
Matthew 25:41 · He is a fallen angel
Matthew 25:41; Rev 20:10 · His ultimate fate is Gehenna
Luke 4:13 · He is the devil, the slanderer
Luke 10:18 · He fell from a sinless high estate
Luke 13:16 · He blinds people physically and spiritually
Luke 22:31 · He viewed Simon Peter as a target
John 3:8, 10 · His children are unsaved people
John 8:44 · He was branded "a liar" and "the father of lies" by Jesus
John 8:44 · He is a murderer
John 12:31; 14:30 · He is the prince of this world
John 13:2,27 · He caused Judas to betray Christ
Acts 5:3 · Educes Ananias to lie
2 Corinthians 4:4 · He blinds people spiritually
Ephesians 2:2 · He indwells the unsaved
Ephesians 6:10-20 · He is routed by Spirit-directed prayer
Ephesians 6:11-12 · He heads a celestial hierarchy of evil
1 Thessalonians 2:18 · He hinders God's will in believers
2 Thessalonians 2:9 · He works diabolic miracles
1 Timothy 4:1-6 · He instigates false doctrine
1 Peter 5:8 · He seeks to harm believers
1 Peter 5:8-9 · He is overcome by faith
Revelation 2:9 · He has a synagogue of legalists who deny God's grace in Christ
Revelation 12:9 · He is the deceiver
Revelation 12:9; 20:2 · He is the dragon, that old serpent
Revelation 20:1-3 · He will be bound during the millennium

Showing 1 to 50 of 319 results