12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid."
14 Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."
19 Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" 20 "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.
21 Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."
22 This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"
23 But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."
25 "Who are you?" they asked. 26 "Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. "I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."
27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him." 30 Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.
Embracing Christ—The Light of the World
John 8:12-20
Sermon
by J. Howard Olds
Do you remember the old story about an atheist walkingthrough the woods admiring all the accidents of nature? As he absorbed themajestic trees, the powerful rivers, the beautiful animals, he suddenly heard arustling in the bushes behind him. Turning to see what was the matter, theatheist found himself face-to-face with a seven-foot grizzly bear. The atheistdid what any of us would do. He ran for dear life, but the bear was too fastand the atheist soon fell to the ground in exhaustion. Now eye-to-eye with thebear, the atheist cried out, “OH MY GOD." Immediately time stopped, the bearfroze, the forest went silent, even the river stopped flowing. A bright lightbeamed from heaven and a voice cried out, “You, who deny my existence, teachothers that I don't exist, consider creation an accident - am I now to countyou a believer?" “Well," replied the atheist, “that would be a littlehypocritical. Maybe you could just make the bear a Christian." “Very well!" repliedthe voice. The light went out, the river ran, the sounds of the forest resumed,the bear folded his paws, bowed his head and said, “Lord, for this food I amabout to receive, I am truly thankful."
On the first night of the Tabernacle Festival at the Templeof Jerusalem, the blaze in the court was so bright that every courtyard in thecity was illuminated. All night long the greatest, wisest, and holiest men ofIsrael danced before the Lord and sang praises to God. It was on that occasionthat Jesus uttered the text I want us to turn to today. Jesus said, “I am thelight of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but willhave the light of life" (John 8:12). That's what I want to talk about today.
I. JESUS CHRIST, THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.
Jesus Christ is the word of God made flesh. John opens hisgospel with these words, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was withGod and the Word was God." Verse 14 says, “And the Word became flesh and dweltamong us."
One of the defining characteristics of Christianity is thatwe find the revelation of God primarily in a Person. Jews have the Torah (Lawof Moses). Muslims have the Koran (revelation of Mohammed). Buddhists have theteachings of Buddha and Christians have Jesus Christ. He is the revelation ofGod's character and passion. He is God with us; He is the love of God madevisible. In our very midst, He is the word of God, the revelation of God in ahuman form.
So the first question at the door of any Christian Churchis, “What will you do with Jesus?" Dare you accept Him as Lord and Savior? Letme explain what that means.
Jesus Christ is the bridge to God made possible. One of thelingering images I have of Hurricane Katrina is not the awful pictures of humansuffering, but an early photo of a freeway buckled into broken slabs ofconcrete, one with a car perched precariously on the brink, on what was once amain thoroughfare leading into New Orleans. I kept wondering, “Who was in thatcar? Did they get to safety? What happened to them in that moment of tragedy asthey sat there on the brink of a broken road?" One reason rescue efforts werehindered is the fact that roads and bridges into the city were destroyed. Themilitary had to restore the roads before the convoys could travel.
It all made me think of that Paul Simon song, “Bridge OverTroubled Waters". Some of you who came of age in the 60's know it by heart. Ilike to paraphrase it this way:
When you are down and out
When you are on the street
When evenings fall so hard
Christ will comfort you.
He'll take your part, when darkness comes
And pain is all around
Like a bridge over troubled waters, Jesus lays himself down.
Like a bridge over troubled waters, Jesus lays himself down.
That's what salvation is all about. The broken bridge to thecity of God is restored through the life, death and resurrection of JesusChrist.
Jesus Christ is the image of God made visible. Did you readin the paper about the London Zoo's newest exhibit? It features hom*o sapiens intheir natural environment. Inside a sealed enclosure, eight human beings spendtheir time sunning on a rock ledge, playing board games, and waving tospectators. Polly Wills, the zoo spokesperson says, “The purpose of the exhibitis to down play the uniqueness of human beings as a species. The exhibitteaches people that humans are just another form of primate animals. We are notthat special."
The Bible has a better idea. According to Genesis, humanbeings are created in the image of God. This Imago Deo, (God-likeness) existsin the heart of every person. Before there was original badness, there was originalgoodness. That spark of goodness which Quakers call the “inner light" lives inthe heart of every person. It is the image of God in the heart of human beings.
Because the inner light gets hidden under the bowl of greed,guilt, grief, self-indulgence, self-righteousness, self-centeredness, Christcame to rekindle the flame. He came to light up your life. Could your life usesome light today? In the midst of trying to live and make a living, raise afamily, be responsible, could your life use some light today?
II. JESUS CHRIST IS OUR LIGHT OF LIFE.
“Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but willhave the light of life." Could your life use some enlightenment?
We can encounter His grace. Grace is the unearned,unmerited, unconditional love of God that makes it all right even when we'vedone it all wrong. All of us occasionally do right. A few predominantly do whatis right, but none of us always does what is right. Because we are falliblehuman beings we need forgiveness. We need the strength to begin again. That'swhat grace does for us. That is what we are offered in Jesus Christ—the chanceto start again.
Thomas Edison and his staff worked hundreds of hoursmanufacturing a single light bulb. When the invention was finished, Edisonasked a young assistant to take it upstairs to the testing room. The young manwas so excited he stumbled and fell, shattering the light bulb on the steps. That'swhen Edison assembled his staff and started working on another light bulb. Whenit was finished Edison called the same assistant to carry it upstairs to thetesting room.
That's what Jesus Christ does for us; he gives us a secondchance. In fact, He wants us to keep coming back until we get it right. Nomatter how many times we keep coming back, He gives us grace and that's whatgrace is all about. He is the light of life; He came to shine on you. No wonderwe call grace amazing.
We can embody His values. Tiger Woods is a Nike man fromhead to toe. They pay him about one hundred million dollars to wear Nikefootwear, Nike clothes, Nike gloves, Nike hats, and yes, he hits Nike balls.
Paul says to the Church at Colosse, “Clothe yourselves inChrist. Put on compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience. Forgive asthe Lord forgives you. And above all, love one another."
My mother used to say:
Christ has no hands but our hands to do his work today,
He has no feet but our feet to lead men in His way,
We are the only Bible the careless world will read,
We are the sinner's gospel; we are the scoffer's creed.
Become the body of Christ! Live a life of clarified values. Bea Christ person.
We can embrace His light. I want to walk as a child of theLight. I want to follow Jesus. How about you? II Corinthians 4:6 says, “Thelight of the knowledge of the glory of God shines in the face of Jesus." I knowthat's hard to understand. There are many things about the nature of Christthat my small mind cannot comprehend. Christians have done things in the nameof Christ that surely make God shudder. We've used His name to support ourideas and our ideals that would be far away from the way of God. Like people ofevery century, people of the 21st century form opinions about Him. We know inpart and understand in part. But when the light fully comes, we shall know evenas we are fully known.
In the meantime, I want to walk as a child of the light. Iwant to follow Jesus. For you see, life is not about you; life is not about me.Life is about following Jesus. So, I want to give as much of myself as Iunderstand to as much of Christ as I can comprehend. That really is all He everasks. Would you claim Him as Savior and Lord?
So, I end where I began. What will you do with Jesus? We canhesitate making up our minds, but we cannot hesitate making up our lives. Forour lives get made up one way or another. You can choose not to choose, butlife will choose for you. What will you do with Jesus who is called the Christ?
ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Faith Breaks, by J. Howard Olds
Torches lit during the Feast of Tabernacles remind the pilgrims of God’s presence in the wilderness through the pillar of fire (Exodus 13–14). Jesus now claims to be “the light of the world,” the true source of God’s presence (8:12). The Pharisees try to discredit his testimony, but Jesus again appeals to his heavenly origin and unique relationship with the Father (8…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
13 The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid."
14 Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."
19 Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" 20 "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.
21 Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come."
22 This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, 'Where I go, you cannot come'?"
23 But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."
25 "Who are you?" they asked. 26 "Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. "I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."
27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him." 30 Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.
John 8:12 returns to the festival setting of Tabernacles (cf. 7:2). The discourse of 7:14–39 focused on one symbolic element: the everlasting temple water of Zechariah. Now Jesus employs a second ritual theme: everlasting light (8:12–20). Zechariah also predicted that light would shine forth perpetually from the temple in the last days (Zech. 14:6–7). This too was associated with Moses and the wilderness tabernacles: was not Israel led by a pillar of light (Exod. 13:21)? The Feast of Tabernacles was further celebrated during the autumn equinox, recognizing the failing summer sun.
Pilgrims to Jerusalem enjoyed the light ceremonies of the temple (see Mishnah Sukkah 5:2–4). Four enormous candlesticks were lit each night, illuminating the brilliant temple limestone. It is a tribute to the Jewishness of John that he records an incidental detail of importance. Just as Jesus spoke of messianic fulfillment at the height of the water ceremonies (7:37), now John says that Jesus is in the area of the temple treasury (8:20). The treasury was in the Court of Women, and this was the location of the festival lampstands! Beneath the ritual lights of the Feast of Tabernacles Jesus announces, “I am the light of the world.”
“Light” is a frequent metaphor for Jesus in the Gospel (see 1:5; 3:19; 12:46; 1John 1:5). As light, Jesus discloses the person of God for us; illumines life and gives us meaning and purpose; and also exposes sin, judging those who dwell in darkness. These are persistent themes in the Fourth Gospel. Here the pilgrims at the Feast of Tabernacles recognize something authoritative in Jesus’s words but demand legal substantiation (8:13–19). This question was posed in chapter 5 at another festival. In the Old Testament (Deut. 17:6) and the Mishnah (Ketubbot 2:9) it was held that a person could not be condemned unless two witnesses were present (cf. Matt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1). This was extended to self-testimony. Now, however, Jesus does not inventory his witnesses. He has done this already (5:30–47). The most acute witness to Jesus is the Father (8:18). Jesus’s self-witness is also valid because Jesus can assume the authority of the Father, namely, that of judgment (5:22; 8:16). But since Jesus’s opponents do not know the Father, they can hardly perceive the weight of his testimony.
The balance of the Tabernacles discourse now takes on the traditional format we have seen many times. Misunderstanding on the part of Jesus’s questioners propels the discourse forward, leading Jesus to further self-revelations. Now, however, in Jerusalem, these revelations will become more profound than anything before, and the hostilities more direct. Here (8:59) and at the next feast (Dedication, 10:31, 33), violence seems imminent. If what Jesus says is true, he must be followed or destroyed.
Where is Jesus going (8:21–30)? This is the second time this question has been asked (cf. 7:32–36). Earlier Jesus volunteered no explanation. Now when his audience mistakenly thinks that he will commit suicide (8:22), Jesus unveils something of his true origins (8:23–24). Jesus is returning to the place from which he originated, “from above” (8:23; cf. 3:31). The divine implications of this are explicit in 8:24. Jesus uses the divine name (egō eimi) as a description of his identity. In this round (8:24, 28) and the next (8:58), this is the climax of Jesus’s testimony. The Greek form of the Hebrew name Yahweh (Exod. 3:14) is applied to Christ in an absolute way. Jesus is the great I AM.
Again the crowd misunderstands. “Who are you?” (8:25). “I am” (8:24) usually requires a predicate. Still they fail to see. Jesus bears the full authority of God! But here at last Jesus indicates when they will perceive: at the cross (8:28). This is the second passion prediction in John (elsewhere 3:14 and 12:32–34; cf. the same triple prediction in the Synoptics: Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34). The metaphoric language in all three passion sayings is critical: the cross is the lifting up of Jesus (not his destruction). “Lifting up” (Greek hypsoō) is often used for exaltation (Acts 2:33; 5:31). His elevation on Calvary is the initial step in his departure. It is in this process that his divinity will be unmistakable. He will be exalted.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Jesus’ third public announcement at the Feast of Tabernacles took place on the last and greatest day of the Feast (v. 37). It is perhaps the most remembered and certainly the most widely discussed saying in Jesus’ temple discourse if not in the entire Gospel. Of the nineteen articles on John 7 listed in the bibliography of Raymond Brown’s major commentary, seventeen deal with verses 37–39! (The Gospel According to John, AB 29A [New York: Doubleday, 1966], p. 331). This is attributable both to the intrinsic appeal of Jesus’ words and to the unique combination of difficulties in knowing how they should be heard or read. Verses 37–39 might be plausibly understood in any of at least three ways:
1. Jesus … said … “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit … (NIV).
2. Jesus … said … “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me. And let him drink, who believes in me. As the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” By this he meant the Spirit … (NIV margin).
3. Jesus … said … “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me. And let him drink, who believes in me.” [It was] as the Scripture said, streams of living water will flow from within him. But by this it meant the Spirit …
In the interpretation of this text two issues present themselves: the issue of punctuation and the issue of whether Jesus or the narrator is represented as introducing the scripture quotation of uncertain origin. The first rendering connects the phrase, whoever believes in me, with the scripture quotation so that the believer (any believer) is the one from whom the streams of living water are to come. In version 2 the punctuation is different: The phrase “If anyone is thirsty” stands parallel with “him … who believes in me,” and the scripture quotation follows as Jesus’ comment on the whole preceding sentence. In both versions, the Scripture is Jesus’ text and not the narrator’s. But as soon as the scripture quotation is set apart from the phrase “Whoever believes in me,” it is no longer obvious that the quotation is being attributed to Jesus. The third rendering attributes it instead to the narrator.
The effect of this shift is significant. According to version 3, Jesus extends an invitation to the spiritually thirsty to come and drink, but without an explicit promise attached. The Gospel writer takes the opportunity to state that this appeal by Jesus fulfills a particular text of scripture. The one from whose heart the living water flows is now Jesus himself, not the believer. This rendering of the passage has certain considerations in its favor. It is more natural to think of Jesus than of individual Christian believers as the source or wellspring of the life-giving Spirit of God. Verse 39 mentions the Spirit whom believers in Jesus were later to receive (not dispense to others). It is Jesus who dispenses the Holy Spirit as the very breath of his mouth (20:22). At his crucifixion, in a scene rich with symbolism, water as well as blood flows from his pierced side (19:34).
The real choice in the interpretation of verses 37–39 is not between versions 1 and 2 (i.e., the NIV text and the NIV margin), but between either of them and version 3. The real issue is whether Jesus or the gospel writer is quoting Scripture. In favor of 1 and 2, it can be said that Jesus is freely represented as quoting scripture in this Gospel, and there are hints, as we have seen, that the exposition of scripture may have played a larger part in the temple discourse than first appears (cf. vv. 15, 22–23). Verse 39 is a comment of the narrator in any case, and such a comment makes good sense on the assumption that Jesus himself is still the speaker in verse 38.
If, on the other hand (as in version 3), the narrator is already responsible for most of verse 38, then in verse 39 he is commenting on his own appended words (i.e., the scripture quotation), not the words of Jesus. The subject of verse 39 is not Jesus (“he meant”) but the Scripture (“it meant”). The same Greek verb, eipen, is translated “said” (in reference to the Scripture) in verse 38b and “meant” in verse 39.
It is difficult to decide among the three alternatives, and the modern reader is perhaps inclined to ask how necessary it is to decide. The weight of tradition favors version 1, and to a lesser extent version 2, yet an appreciation of version 3 sheds its own light on the text’s meaning. Here, as elsewhere (e.g., 3:11–21), Jesus’ words have merged so closely with those of the narrator that all three renderings of the passage convey broadly similar meanings. In all three, Jesus invites the thirsty hearer to come and drink from the water he has to give. All three attach to the invitation a promise of living water. All three interpret the water as the Spirit, and in all three the qualification of v. 39 that this gift of the Spirit was some thing believers were later to receive is decisive. It is clear in any case that the invitation and the promise were future from the standpoint of the events just recorded at the Feast of Tabernacles. The Spirit, after all, had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified (v. 39). Verses 37–39 belong with those references within and just before the temple discourse that keep emphasizing that the time for Jesus’ decisive and final self-revelation is not yet (i.e., 7:6, 30; 8:20, 28). Jesus’ announcement on the last and greatest day of the Feast is an invitation to faith and a promise of life, embedded within a discourse focused primarily on unbelief and judgment. It is a joyful announcement whose time has not yet come. Yet for the narrator and his readers the time has come: Jesus has been raised to glory and the Spirit has been given. The invitation and the promise are now in effect.
These features that the three renderings have in common far outweigh the points on which they differ. The principal difference is simply that version 3 makes Jesus the source of the life-giving Spirit, whereas versions 1 and 2—version 1 clearly and version 2 more ambiguously—assign this role (at least derivatively) to the believer. Yet in neither case is the believer viewed as a source of life, or of the Spirit, to others. The image of streams of water from the believer’s heart (if that is intended) is akin rather to 4:14, where Jesus promises to whomever drinks of the water he gives “a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” That the believer in Jesus will become a channel of God’s life to others is implicit in the total message of John’s Gospel, but is not the point of either 4:14 or 7:37–38 in particular. The accent is on the rich abundance of the Spirit’s life and power in the heart of the believer, like a self-replenishing and overflowing stream. The source of the stream is Jesus, no less in versions 1 and 2 than in 3, for he alone can say come to me and drink.
Most of the “I am” statements in John’s Gospel are accompanied by a corollary of some kind—an invitation or a promise or both (e.g., 6:35: “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty”; cf. 8:12; 10:9; 11:25–26; 14:6; 15:5, etc.). Verses 37–38 have the appearance of one of these statements in which the “I am” saying proper has been omitted, and only its corollary remains—as if Jesus had said, “I am the fountain of life”; if anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink (cf. Rev. 21:6).
Whether this is the case or not, the passage invites comparison with 8:12, in which Jesus’ self-disclosure and confrontation with the religious authorities continues: I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Each of these pronouncements takes on special meaning against the background of a daily ritual at the Feast of Tabernacles—the pouring of water from the pool of Siloam into a bowl beside the altar in the temple and the lighting of giant lamps in the Court of the Women, respectively (cf. the Mishnah, Sukkah 4.9–5.4). On the last day, when these rituals had ceased, Jesus proclaims himself the true source of water and of light—for Jerusalem and for all the world. In 8:12 he again extends an invitation and a promise, but again the note of hope is submerged in a context of rejection and judgment (8:12–20).
The parallelism between 7:37–38 and 8:12 suggests that the scene of the action has not changed. The smaller units comprising 7:37–8:20, loose-knit though they may be, are legitimately treated as one unfolding drama in the temple on the last and greatest day of the Feast. Jesus’ self-revelation in 7:37–39 provokes a division in the crowd (vv. 40–43) or, rather, brings to a head the division that has existed all along (cf. v. 12). The events of verses 30–31 seem to be happening again, but with more intensity. This time some actually confess Jesus as the Prophet or the Christ (vv. 40–41), but others raise theological objections: Jesus the Galilean cannot be the Messiah because the Messiah must come from Bethlehem in Judea (cf. Micah 5:2). An attempt is made to arrest Jesus, but no one laid a hand on him (v. 44; cf. v. 30). The narrator might have added, “because his time had not yet come,” but there was no need to labor the point.
Instead of describing in detail the second unsuccessful effort to arrest Jesus, the narrator simply chooses this as the place to give the outcome of the first attempt. Verses 45–52 are the sequel to verses 32–36. The temple guards who are abruptly mentioned as returning to the chief priests and Pharisees in verse 45 are the same guards sent out in verse 32. Their testimony to the power of Jesus’ speech and presence (v. 46) refers to his baffling pronouncement in verses 33–34. The guards can only carry their bafflement back to the religious authorities who sent them.
From verse 47 at least through 8:20, the Pharisees move center stage. Jesus will confront them directly, but first their attitudes and their character will be demonstrated. It is probably to be assumed that they speak for the chief priests as well as themselves. They are intensely conscious of their own status, in contrast to that of the crowd, which knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them (v. 49). The Pharisees’ implication is that Jesus and his followers fit this description as well. It was probably common knowledge that Jesus’ disciples came mostly from the social class known as the ‘Am Ha-’aretz, or “people of the land.” Because they had neither studied the law systematically nor been brought up to obey it in anything but a very general way, they were regarded by some of the pious as cursed of God (for illustrations of this in rabbinic literature, see the Mishnah, Aboth 2.6; 3.11). The authorities’ first impression of Jesus when he appeared at the festival was that he was unschooled in the law (cf. v. 15), and despite all that had transpired since then the Pharisees persisted in keeping this impression alive. Their scornful question in verse 48 implies that none of their number has believed in Jesus, and that no one who truly knows the law would ever do so.
Out of nowhere, and as if in reply to this claim, Nicodemus (who has not been heard from since chap. 3) speaks up. Introduced as a “member of the Jewish ruling council” and a Pharisee (3:1), Nicodemus had functioned as an individual example of those in Jerusalem who had “believed” in Jesus but whose faith Jesus did not accept as genuine (2:23–25). Formally, at least, he is a living refutation of the sweeping judgment the Pharisees have just made on Jesus and his followers (cf. also 12:42). Yet the genuineness of his faith remains in doubt. His remark (v. 51) is no ringing confession, but merely a plea for fairness. He appears in the narrative more to demonstrate the Pharisees’ intransigence than to mark a stage in his own spiritual development. When their opinions are gently questioned even by one of their own, they are quick to brand the questioner, half in mockery, as a Galilean (v. 52). The intent is not to probe seriously Nicodemus’ family background but to rebuke his apparent sympathies with Jesus the Galilean. The Pharisees’ parting shot is a corollary of verses 41–42: If the only prophet expected is the Messiah descended from David and born in Bethlehem, then there are no authentic Galilean prophets. Only those ignorant of the Scriptures will follow a Galilean.
Nicodemus disappears as abruptly as he appeared, and the stage is now set for Jesus to confront the Pharisees again (8:12), this time not through emissaries but directly. Yet his pronouncement I am the light of the world …, the sequel to 7:37–38, is not for them exclusively but for whoever follows me. It is universal in scope and probably, like 7:37–38, future in its orientation. The desire of Jesus’ brothers that he “show himself to the world” (7:4) is coming to realization but with the outcome Jesus foresaw, that the world “hates me because I testify that what it does is evil” (7:7). Only when the Spirit comes will the outcome be different.
The world’s representatives immediately challenge Jesus’ authority. The ensuing debate is a virtual re-enactment of 5:30–38. Jesus’ claim to be the light of the world is invalid because he is testifying on his own behalf (8:13). The Pharisees have in mind the principle of the oral law that witnesses were not to be believed when testifying on their own behalf (the Mishnah, Ketuboth 2.9). Jesus had acknowledged this very principle in 5:31, but here he takes exception to it (v. 14). What is different is not the conclusion toward which he is moving but the logic by which he will reach it. His testimony on his own behalf is valid, he says, for I know where I came from and where I am going. The reason the Pharisees question his authority is that they do not know these things (v. 14b).
It is not clear how such knowledge validates Jesus’ testimony until, in subsequent verses, Jesus makes the same point again in different words: where I came from and where I am going, it appears, is an indirect way of referring to the Father. Jesus’ testimony is valid because he knows the Father. The Father, in fact, is speaking in and through the testimony of Jesus. Verses 14, 16, and 18 are three progressively clearer ways of saying that there are actually two witnesses, Jesus and the Father, speaking through Jesus’ lips. That is why his testimony is self-authenticating. The reader understands this because the same point emerged from the earlier discourse in 5:30–47, but here the Pharisees are baffled by it. A major difference is that the earlier discourse began with a systematic presentation of the relation between the Father and the Son (cf. 5:19–29), whereas here the Pharisees seem to be hearing of the Father for the first time. Not once has Jesus referred to God as his Father throughout this discourse, using instead circumlocutions such as “the one who sent me,” or where I came from, or where I am going. Now he unveils this mysterious Source and Goal as his Father, and the Pharisees do not understand. Even later, in 8:27, it has still not dawned on them that “the one who sent me” means the Father.
Why this apparent regression in terminology? Had the Pharisees forgotten that the very reason Jesus was a wanted man was that he was “calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (5:18)? It is not likely. The intent of the narrative is rather to dramatize the Pharisees’ ignorance of what it means for God to be Jesus’ Father, that is, their ignorance of all that Jesus taught in 5:19–47. That earlier discourse, though clear and decisive to the readers of the Gospel, was lost on its immediate hearers. A monologue from beginning to end, it is intended by the narrator more for Jesus’ followers and would-be followers than for the Jewish authorities. The temple discourse, on the other hand, is punctuated by sharp exchanges between Jesus and his opponents. Because it aims at actual communication within the actual literary setting, the breakdowns in communication, when they occur, are painfully evident—as, for example, in the Pharisees’ question, Where is your father? (v. 19).
The Pharisees are not questioning the legitimacy of Jesus’ birth, as some commentators have suggested, but responding to his mention of the scriptural principle that two witnesses are necessary to validate a statement in court (v. 17; cf. Deut. 19:15). There are two witnesses, Jesus says: He himself is one, and his Father is the other (vv. 16, 18). Where is your father? is the Pharisees’ challenge to Jesus to bring on this second witness. They have not yet grasped the point that the second witness speaks not as an identifiable external entity but only through Jesus himself (cf. 5:31–40). To hear Jesus is to hear the second witness as well. To know him is to know his Father. But Jesus’ grim verdict in the present case is that you do not know me or my Father (v. 19). The summary statement that “he spoke these words while teaching in the temple area” (8:20) corresponds in form to the ending of the synagogue discourse two chapters earlier (“He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum,” 6:59) and so gives the impression that the temple discourse is now concluded. In fact, the discourse continues to the end of the chapter. What is concluded is merely one stage of the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees, in the Court of Women on the eighth day of the festival. The allusion in verse 20 to the offering boxes (and thus, implicitly, to the Court of the Women) suggests that the festival is now over, yet Jesus does not leave the temple until verse 59. At some point in the collection of this material, verse 20 may have served to terminate the temple discourse, but the phrase once more (v. 21; cf. v. 12) allows the Gospel writer to append further discussions probably remembered in connection with the same visit of Jesus to Jerusalem. The seams that are now and then visible in the fabric of the narrative only highlight the Gospel writer’s intention to weave a single continuous account of Jesus’ temple ministry from 7:14 to 8:59.
The festival ends with Jesus still at large. The Pharisees are no more able to arrest him than the guards they sent out earlier, for still his time had not yet come (v. 20).
Additional Notes
7:37 On the last and greatest day of the Feast: The last day of the festival proper was the seventh day, but the eighth day was a distinct celebration in its own right, a time to rejoice and sing the Hallel (i.e., Psalms 113–118). The special festival of the eighth day is discussed at length in the fifth-century midrash, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana 28 (ed. W. G. Braude and I. J. Kapstein [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1975], pp. 424–44). In the Mishnah (Sukkah 4.8) the eighth day is called “the last Festival-day of the Feast,” while Josephus (Antiquities 3.245) clearly refers to the Feast of Tabernacles as an eight-day festival. These considerations suggest that v. 37 indeed refers to the eighth day, which, if not most important to everyone, was at any rate a day set apart from all other days for special observance.
7:38 As the scripture has said: The passage of scripture being cited remains unidentified. On the assumption that Jesus himself is the source of the water, two of the commonest suggestions have been Ps. 78:16 (“He brought streams out of a rocky crag and made water flow down like rivers”—referring to the incident described in Exod. 17:1–7) and Zech. 14:8 (“On that day [i.e., the day of the Lord], living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea”; cf. also Ezek. 47:1–12, and the NT use of the theme in Rev. 22:1–2). A metaphorical identification of Jesus either with the life-giving rock in the Sinai desert (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4) or with the city of Jerusalem itself and its temple, must be presupposed.
On the assumption that the believer is the source of the water, suggestions include Prov. 18:4; Isa. 58:11; and especially (in the Apocrypha) Sir. 24:28–31: ‘Now I, like a rivulet from her [wisdom’s] stream, channeling the waters into a garden, said to myself, “I will water my plants, my flower bed I will drench’; and suddenly this rivulet of mine became a river, then this stream of mine, a sea. Thus do I send my teachings forth shining like the dawn, to become known afar off. Thus do I pour out instruction like prophecy” (NAB).
None of these texts comes close to providing a source for any kind of exact quotation. It is likely that the passage the Gospel writer (or Jesus) had in mind contained the striking phrase, from within him (lit., “out of his stomach”; Gr.: ek tēs koilias autou), and there is no biblical passage that combines this phrase with the imagery of streams of water. Justin Martyr in the second century (Dialogue with Trypho 135.3) identified Christians as “the true Israelite race” because they were “quarried from the heart” [Gr.: ek tēs koilias] of Christ like rock from the heart of the earth (cf. also Dialogue 114.4). It may be that both he and John were aware of already existing applications to Christ of such texts as Zech. 14:8, Ezek. 47:1–12, and Ps. 78:16, and that John is quoting just such a Christian midrash, or paraphrase, as his Scripture.
7:40–41 The Prophet … the Christ: cf. 1:20–21. The real dispute is not between those who say Jesus is the Prophet foretold in Deut. 18:15–18 and those who say he is the Messiah descended from David but between both groups and those who ask, How can the Christ come from Galilee?
7:52 A prophet does not come …: Every tribe in Israel had had its prophets (cf. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 27b), and it was not strictly true that no prophets had come from Galilee (Jonah, e.g., came from Gath-hepher in Galilee, 2 Kings 14:25). Because of this, the reading of the NIV margin (“the Prophet,” based on one very early papyrus manuscript, P66) is an attractive one, for it would create a parallel with v. 41: “the Prophet,” since he is in fact the Messiah, will not come from Galilee but from Bethlehem in Judea. But there is no evidence that in Jewish expectation there was such a complete merging of the Mosaic Prophet with the Davidic messianic king. More likely, the Pharisees are saying that a prophet is not arising out of Galilee now, i.e., this Galilean called Jesus is no true prophet.
8:1–11 This section (designated as 7:53–8:11 in standard editions of the Greek text and in most English versions) is not found in the earliest manuscripts, and therefore cannot be regarded as an original part of John’s Gospel. Most of the later manuscripts that do contain the passage place it here, but some place it in Luke’s Gospel (after 21:38), and some at the end of John’s Gospel; one manuscript places it after John 7:36, and in one ancient translation it is found after John 7:44. Though it is undoubtedly a true incident in Jesus’ life, the story of the adulteress does not belong in the New Testament and specifically does not belong here, where its presence divides one day’s action into two and interrupts the narrator’s development of 7:37–8:20. Its more appropriate historical setting is that described in Luke 21:37–38, in which Jesus, during the last week of his ministry, spent his nights on the Mount of Olives and his days teaching in the temple (cf. vv. 1–2), answering questions from the Pharisees and chief priests about the law.
This helps explain why some late manuscripts insert the passage after Luke 21:38 but not why so many more place it here. Two factors seem to have been at work in this: (a) The story illustrates with respect to one woman Jesus’ statement to the Pharisees in 8:15: You judge me by human standards; I pass judgment on no one (cf. v. 11). (b) At the same time it illumines the Johannine theme that judgment nevertheless emerges from Jesus’ ministry. By refusing to condemn the adulteress, he condemns the religious establishment before which she stands accused. This implicit theme of judgment on Jerusalem and the temple may be what impelled later copyists to place the story within the temple discourse at the Feast of Tabernacles. Even the detail that it was the older ones [or “the elders”] first who were put to shame recalls the ancient example of judgment on Jerusalem’s first temple in Ezek. 9:6 (where the “leaders” who are judged first are literally the “elders” of Israel).
8:17 Your own Law: It is sometimes urged that Jesus is represented as speaking here as if he himself were not a Jew (cf. the same phrase in 10:34 and the phrase “their Law” in 15:25). This is said to reflect the Gentile, even anti-Jewish, perspective of the author of this Gospel.
Two other factors, however, more plausibly explain Jesus’ language in these places. (a) The pronouns strengthen his argument by making it ad hominem. Jesus’ opponents are refuted by the very scripture that they themselves acknowledge and proclaim to be true; the fact that Jesus also acknowledges it is assumed but is not crucial to the argument. (b) Jesus may be speaking in the style of OT prophets who at times, in the name of God, stood over against Israel and pronounced judgment on Israel’s institutions (e.g., Isa. 1:13–14: “your incense … your evil assemblies … your New Moon festivals … your appointed feasts”).
8:20 Near the place where the offerings were put: lit., “in the treasury.” The reference is not to the actual chambers used to store the temple treasure but probably to the place of access to these chambers, i.e., the Court of the Women (so called to distinguish it from the holy precincts where sacrifices were offered and women were not permitted). Because the Court of the Women was where the lamp-lighting ceremony of the eighth day took place (cf. the Mishnah, Sukkah 5.2), it is the natural setting for the accompanying discourse. That it is called the treasury rather than the Court of the Women may simply echo other narratives in which “the treasury” is the scene of Jesus’ temple ministry (e.g., Mark 12:41–44 and Luke 21:1–4, where contributions to the treasury actually figure in the story).
Jesus and the Unbelievers
Verses 21–29 serve to document Jesus’ indictment of the Pharisees in verse 19, “You do not know me or my Father.” The Father is Jesus’ past and his future. Jesus has come from God and is going to God again, but his hearers understand neither of these things. The earlier bewilderment about where Jesus is going (cf. 7:32–36) is echoed here as well (vv. 21–22), but with the somber added note that you will die in your sin (v. 21). His words should be taken not as an absolute pronouncement of doom but as a warning. The Jewish authorities (like everyone else) will die in their sins if they do not believe that I am the one I claim to be (v. 24). The reverse side of this warning is the promise of life in verse 51: “If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” Even in the nearer context, Jesus can speak more positively: When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be (v. 28).
Which is it then? Will they die in their sins, or will they come to believe in Jesus and know who he is? The dialogue presupposes the same gulf between the world below and the world above that governed the conversation with Nicodemus in chapter 3. The Jewish authorities are of this world (v. 23) and cannot begin to understand Jesus without a new birth from above. When he says he is going away where they cannot follow, they can only think he is planning suicide (v. 22)! Yet just as a similar misunderstanding had earlier pointed to the profound truth of a mission to the Gentiles (7:35), so here the mention of suicide points forward to Jesus’ voluntary death on a cross to take away sin. Not until they have lifted up the Son of Man on that cross will they know who Jesus is and realize that he has spoken the very words of God (v. 28). The reference to a future moment of understanding only serves to accent their present ignorance. Who are you? they ask Jesus (v. 25), and they are told that all along from the very beginning of his ministry he has been making himself known, if only they would listen (v. 25). There is much he could say now in condemnation, but Jesus refuses to be drawn into bitter argument (v. 26). His intention is rather to deliver the message the Father has given him (vv. 26, 28b).
Insofar as this revelation is a self-revelation, it centers on the strange phrase, I am the one I claim to be (vv. 24, 28). Literally, the phrase in Greek (egō eimi) is “I Am” with no predicate (cf. v. 58). Is a predicate to be supplied from the context—for example, in verse 23, “I am from above,” or in verse 28, “I am the Son of Man”? Or does the point of the self-disclosure lie precisely in the absence of a predicate? The latter is more likely. Jesus’ identity is not linked to a particular predicate but emerges from all his words and actions up to this point in the Gospel. What the hearers must accept, and what the “lifting up” on the cross will verify, is that he is indeed who he claims (explicitly and implicitly) to be.
Additional Notes
8:25 Just what I have been claiming all along: The Greek is obscure (lit., “the beginning, what I speak to you”). It has been translated, “Primarily just what I tell you” and even (as a question), “Why do I speak to you at all?” One ancient papyrus has a longer reading: “I told you in the beginning what I speak to you now,” and although this reading is probably not original, it may represent an early paraphrase that captured the intended meaning.
8:28 When you have lifted up the Son of Man: For “lifting up” as an allusion to crucifixion, cf. 3:14. The apparent implication that the Jewish authorities themselves crucified Jesus is surprising in light of 18:31 (which seems to focus on crucifixion as a Roman method of execution), but the present passage anticipates, instead, 19:16: “Finally Pilate handed him over to them [the Jewish priests] to be crucified.” The assumption is that in some sense the Jewish authorities (though not the Jewish people) did crucify Jesus.
Then you will know: Alongside the striking claim that the Jewish leaders themselves would crucify the Son of Man is an equally surprising note of hope. As a result of Jesus’ death, they will come to realize who he is and on whose authority he speaks. The emphasis, however, is not on the faith or repentance of these religious leaders in particular but simply on the fact that Jesus and his claims will be vindicated before the whole world by what happens after he is “lifted up” (i.e., by his subsequent resurrection).
Though this vindication is future, the verse as a whole (together with v. 29) intends primarily to affirm something about the present: Jesus is who he is now; he does nothing on his own, but speaks now what the Father has instructed him; God is with him, and he lives to please God now and always.
8:29 He has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him. The argument of the previous section that in the words of Jesus both the Father and the Son speak is here presupposed and continued (cf. v. 16). The reason Jesus is not alone is that he does what pleases the Father (cf. 4:34; 5:30; 6:38). The same terminology is used of Christian believers in 1 John 3:22.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by J. Ramsey Michaels, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
Faith in the context of the OT rests on a foundation that the person or object of trust, belief, or confidence is reliable. Trust in Yahweh is expressed through loyalty and obedience. The theme of responsive obedience is emphasized in the Torah (Exod. 19:5). In the later history of Israel, faithfulness to the law became the predominant expression of faith (Dan. 1:8; 6:10). OT faith, then, is a moral response rather than abstract intellect or emotion.
Faith is a central theological concept in the NT. In relational terms, faith is foremost personalized as the locus of trust and belief in the person of Jesus Christ.
In the Gospels, Jesus is spoken of not as the subject of faith (as believing in God), but as the object of faith. In the Synoptic Gospels, faith is seen most often in connection with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles, in particular healings, are presented as taking place in response to the faith of the one in need of healing or the requester. In the Gospel of John, faith (belief) is presented as something that God requires of his people (6:2829).
In the book of Acts, “faith/belief” is used to refer to Jews and Gentiles converting to following the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and becoming part of the Christian community. The book correlates faith in Christ closely with repentance (Acts 11:21; 19:18; 20:21; 26:18).
Paul relates faith to righteousness and justification (Rom. 3:22; 5:11; Gal. 3:6). In Ephesians faith is shown as instrumental in salvation: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (2:8).
In Hebrews, faith is described as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (11:1). Faith thus is viewed as something that can be accomplished in the life of the believer—a calling of God not yet tangible or seen. To possess faith is to be loyal to God and to the gospel of Jesus Christ despite all obstacles. In the Letter of James, genuine works naturally accompany genuine faith. Works, however, are expressed in doing the will of God. The will of God means, for example, caring for the poor (James 2:15–16).
In 1Peter, Christ is depicted as the broker of faith in God (1:21), whereas in 2Peter and Jude faith is presented as received from God (2Pet. 1:1). In the Letters of John “to believe” is used as a litmus test for those who possess eternal life: “You who believe in the name of the Son of God, ... you have eternal life” (1John 5:13).
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. 18:617). 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 60percent 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.
The divine name, YHWH, revealed to Moses (Exod. 3:14) is related to hayah, the Hebrew verb for “to be.” The LXX renders this name with the phrase “I am” (egō eimi), which later OT writings employ as a title for God (Isa. 43:25; 51:12; 52:6).
A significant feature in the Fourth Gospel is John’s record of seven predicated “I am” statements within Jesus’ teaching: “I am the bread of life” (6:35); “I am the light of the world” (8:12); “I am the gate for the sheep” (10:7); “I am the good shepherd” (10:11); “I am the resurrection and the life” (11:25); “I am the way and the truth and the life” (14:6); and “I am the true vine” (15:1). With each metaphor Jesus expresses a contrast between himself and another. For instance, Jesus’ claim to be the bread of life differentiates him from the manna that appeared in the wilderness (6:49), while his identification as the good shepherd stands in contrast to the hired hand who abandons the sheep in a time of trouble (10:12 13). In these instances “I am” is likely an intentional choice meant to echo the divine name and reveal Jesus’ relationship of unity with God the Father.
The meaning of additional unpredicated but emphatic “I am” declarations in Greek by Jesus is debated (Mark 6:50; 14:62; Luke 24:39; John 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5). In response to Jesus’ declaration of “I am,” the high priest accuses him of blasphemy (Mark 14:64), the Jews desire to stone him (John 8:59), and the officials who come to arrest him “[draw] back and [fall] to the ground” (John 18:6). These reactions suggest that at least some who heard Jesus utter these words interpreted them as his claim to equality with God (cf. John 5:18).
Of several Hebrew words for “judgment,” two are important here.
The word shepet is used of God, who brings the judgments upon the Egyptians in the plagues (Exod. 6:6; 7:4; 12:12). Ezekiel prophesies God’s judgment on Israel and other nations (e.g., Ezek. 5:10; 16:41; 25:11). The word is also applied to human beings, as the Syrians execute judgment on Israel (2Chron. 24:24).
The most frequent noun is mishpat. Abraham is noted for mishpat, “judgment/justice” (Gen. 18:19). God by attribute is just (Gen. 18:25); he shows justice toward the orphan and the widow (Deut. 10:18) and brings judgment on behalf of the oppressed (Ps. 25:9). At the waters of Marah, God makes a judgment, an ordinance for the people (Exod. 15:25). Similarly, the mishpatim, “judgments/ordinances,” become law for life in Israel (Exod. 21:1). In making judicial judgments, the Israelites are to be impartial (Lev. 19:15), and they are to use good judgment and justice in trade (Lev. 19:35; Prov. 16:11). Israel will be judged for rejecting God’s judgments (Ezek. 5:78) and worshiping false gods (Jer. 1:16). Those accused of crime will come to judgment/trial (Num. 35:12). The children of Israel come to their judges for judgment (Judg. 4:5). God will bring each person to a time of judgment regarding how his or her life is spent (Eccles. 11:9).
One key word in the NT is krisis. It has a range of meaning similar to mishpat. In the NT, judgment is rendered for thoughts and words as well as deeds (Matt. 5:21–22; 12:36). Future, eschatological judgment is a key theme for Jesus (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:42), Paul (2Thess. 1:5), and other NT writers (Heb. 9:27; 10:27; 2Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1John 4:17; Jude 15; Rev. 14:7). Jesus himself will be the judge (John 5:22). The only way to avoid condemnation is by having eternal life in the Messiah (John 5:24).
Another key word in the NT is krima. It may refer to condemnation (Matt. 7:2; Rom. 3:8) or to judgment, again including the eschatological judgment (Acts 24:25). Krima is the word most frequently used by Paul. He also often presents judgment as already realized (e.g., Rom. 2:2–3; 5:16). In the later epistles judgment may be realized as well (2Pet. 2:3; Jude 4). James points out that not many should presume to be teachers, because they will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).
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. 1923) 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.
God begins his creation with light, which precedes the creation of sun, moon, and stars and throughout Scripture is an unqualified good (Gen. 1:35, 15–18; Exod. 10:23; 13:21). In the ancient world, people rarely traveled at night and usually went to bed soon after sunset. The only light in the home was a small oil lamp set on a stand, which burned expensive olive oil. Light is a biblical synonym for life (Job 3:20; John 8:12). Seeing the light means living (Ps. 49:19; see also Job 33:30). Conversely, darkness is often a symbol of adversity, disaster, and death (Job 30:26; Isa. 8:22; Jer. 23:12; Lam. 3:2).
John, who offers perhaps the most profound meditations on light, claims that God is light (1John 1:5). The predicate appropriates the intrinsic beauty of light, a quality that draws people’s hearts back to the author of beauty. For the apostle, light represents truth and signifies God’s will in opposition to the deception of the world (John 1:9; 12:46). Light stands for purity and signifies God’s holiness as opposed to the unrighteousness of the world (John 3:19–21). Light is where God is, and it radiates from the place of fellowship between God and his creation (John 1:7).
Five of the important parties in ancient Judaism were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Herodians. The first three seem to have first emerged in reaction to the rise of the Hasmonean priest-kings in the mid-second and first centuries BC, and the other two in response to the occupation of Palestine by the Romans and their establishment of the Herods as the rulers of Israel.
Pharisees. In the Synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees were one of the groups that opposed Jesus. It seems that the Pharisees most strongly opposed Jesus on issues related to their received tradition, which they considered to be as binding as the OT law. Two such legal issues were ceremonial washings before meals and working on the Sabbath. All three Synoptic Gospels narrate the Pharisees questioning Jesus concerning his and his disciples’ failure to follow the tradition of the elders by eating with “unclean”—that is, “unwashed”—hands (Matt. 15:1 2; Mark 7:1–5; Luke 11:39–41). Concerning breaking the Sabbath, the Pharisees confronted Jesus on various occasions, such as when Jesus healed on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–11) and when his disciples picked grain while walking through a field (Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5).
In response to accusations concerning breaking the traditions of the elders, Jesus affirmed the priority of mercy in the face of human need that supersedes laws concerning the Sabbath by saying that the Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), or that the Son of Man (Jesus) was Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). He also said that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Matt. 12:7).
Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees concentrated on their neglecting mercy toward fellow humans for the sake of their tradition. This is especially clear in Matthew, where Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees includes indictments against them for concentrating on the fine points of the law but neglecting justice and mercy (12:7; 23:23).
In the Gospel of John, the Pharisees are again usually depicted as adversaries of Jesus and also in league with other Jewish authorities in plotting to arrest and kill Jesus (7:32; 11:47–57). One passage suggests that they were divided concerning Jesus (9:16). One Pharisee, Nicodemus, came to Jesus by night (John 3), defended Jesus before his peers (7:50), and brought spices to prepare Jesus’ body for burial after his death (19:39).
The Pharisees were not always antagonistic toward Jesus. From time to time, they were on the same side of an issue, such as Jesus’ confrontation with the Sadducees over the resurrection (Luke 20:27–40). Nicodemus, mentioned above, was quite sympathetic toward Jesus. The apostle Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee in regard to keeping the law in Phil. 3:5; Acts 26:5, and in a confrontation with Jerusalem authorities in Acts 23:6. Also, some early Christians were said to be Pharisees (Acts 15:5).
Sadducees. The Sadducees were an elite group of Jews connected with the priesthood. “Sadducee” probably means “Son of Zadok,” a descendant of the high priest Zadok from the time of David. Some members of the Qumran community used the term “Son of Zadok” as a self-designation as well, suggesting some common ancestry, if not direct identification, of the Sadducees and some members of the Qumran community.
The Sadducees are mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, but not in John, although the “chief priests” who plotted against Jesus with the Pharisees (e.g., John 11:46) probably were Sadducees. All three Synoptic Gospels relate the narrative in which the Sadducees posed the hypothetical question concerning whose wife a woman would be in the resurrection if she outlived seven husbands. Jesus answered that they understood neither the Scriptures nor the power of God, and that God was the God of the living and not the dead (Matt. 22:23–33; Mark 12:18–27; Luke 20:27–40).
The book of Acts confirms that the Sadducees were closely connected to the priesthood 4:1; 5:17), and that they disputed with the Pharisees over the resurrection (23:6–8).
Essenes. Josephus delineates the beliefs of the Essenes as follows: (1)They ascribed every happening to God. (2)They believed in the immortality of the soul.
Zealots. Scholars tend to use “Zealots” as a general term to refer to three different groups mentioned by Josephus: brigands, Sicarii (Assassins), and Zealots. The three groups have different political ideologies and emerged at different times in the first century. They can all be described as revolutionaries.
Herodians. The Herodians are mentioned three times in the Gospels. They are reported to have plotted, along with the Pharisees, to kill Jesus after he healed a man with a withered hand (Mark 3:6). They are also described, along with the Pharisees, as trying to trap Jesus concerning the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:13).
The Herodians were aristocrats who supported the Herodian dynasty and the Romans, whose support made that dynasty possible. There seems to be some overlap between the Herodians and the Sadducees; Mark 8:15 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod (some ancient witnesses read “Herodians”), whereas the parallel in Matt. 16:6, 11 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Their religious beliefs may have been similar to those of the Sadducees. Too little information about them exists to permit drawing strong conclusions. One can safely say, however, that the Herodians were pro-Roman aristocrats who joined forces with the anti-Roman Pharisees in opposing Jesus.
Sin enters the biblical story in Gen. 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (2:1617), 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.
In the OT, the phrase “son of man” usually refers to humanity in general or to a specific individual. In Ezekiel, for instance, God addresses the prophet himself as “son of man,” possibly indicating his human status compared with God or, alternatively, highlighting his unique status as God’s prophet in contrast with the rest of humanity.
One of the most crucial OT “son of man” texts is Dan. 7 because of its influence on the “Son of Man” in the Gospel tradition. The first half of the chapter records Daniel’s vision (7:114), while the second half contains its interpretation (7:15–27). In the vision Daniel sees “one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven” (7:13). This exalted figure contrasts with the first three beasts, which are “like a lion” (7:4), “like a bear” (7:5), and “like a leopard” (7:6). The fourth beast is so gruesome that it defies comparison with any species of the animal kingdom (7:7). Many agree that the beasts likely refer to ancient world empires; however, the referent of “one like a son of man” has given rise to much debate. The figure may refer to earthly Israel, since at this figure’s vindication he is endowed with authority and glory. This is precisely what “the holy people of the Most High” receive in verse27. In this way, the “one like a son of man” is a symbol for the persecuted, earthly saints. Alternatively, the exalted figure could be a heavenly being such as the archangel Gabriel (9:21) or Michael (10:13; 12:1). Here “one like a son of man” is the heavenly counterpart and leader of suffering Israel and fights a cosmic battle on its behalf.
In the NT the term “Son of Man” occurs mostly in the Gospels and, with the exception of John 12:34 (where the crowd quotes Jesus), is uttered exclusively by Jesus himself. Unlike in Daniel, the epithet occurs in the Gospels with the definite article, likely indicating that the Son of Man was a known figure. In first-century Judaism many Jews believed that the Son of Man would return at the end as savior and judge. The OT provides the most helpful background for understanding the Son of Man in the Gospels.
The Son of Man sayings in the Gospels fall within three categories: earthly, suffering-resurrection, and future-vindication sayings. Starting with the earthly sayings, in Mark 2:10, for example, the Son of Man has “authority on earth to forgive sins,” and in 2:28 he exercises dominion over the Sabbath. Although in Daniel the Son of Man does not receive such authority until his appearance in Yahweh’s presence at his vindication, the Son of Man in the Gospels exercises such authority during his earthly ministry. Jesus also predicts that the Son of Man will suffer, die, and be raised again. In Mark, these suffering-resurrection predictions occur three times (8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34). Echoing Dan. 7, this plight of Jesus recalls the suffering of the holy ones caused by the little horn (v.21). If the “one like a son of man” represents the holy ones in their vindication, then it is reasonable that he does so in their suffering as well; however, the text of Daniel is silent on this point. Finally, the clearest reference to Dan. 7 occurs in the future-vindication sayings. In Mark 13:26; 14:62 the Son of Man comes with/on the clouds, which points to his vindication over the Sanhedrin, the dominant adversaries of Jesus in Mark. Matthew appears to develop even more than Mark the judicial responsibilities of the Son of Man (Matt. 13:41–43; 25:31–33). Meanwhile, in Luke the church must stay alert and be prepared for the return of the Son of Man (12:39–40; 17:22–37; 21:34–36).
Finally, the Son of Man in Revelation is in the heavenly temple functioning as both judge and caretaker of the seven churches (Rev. 1:12–20) and reaps the saints while “seated on the cloud” (14:14–16).
Treasure was stored in the Jerusalem temple and palace (Josh. 6:24) and was collected from the spoils of war (Josh. 6:19), from offerings (2Kings 12:4; Mark 12:41), and from royal gifts (2Kings 12:18; 1Chron. 29:3). The temple treasury contained gold, silver, other metals, and precious stones (1Chron. 29:8). Treasuries also housed written records (Ezra 6:1). Treasure was stored in the small rooms that surrounded the sanctuary (1Chron. 28:12; see also Jer. 38:11) and was guarded by Levites (1Chron. 9:26). Several treasurers are named (1Chron. 9:26; 26:20, 22; 2Chron. 25:24). The Ethiopian eunuch who met Philip was a treasurer in the court of the Kandake (Acts 8:27). The treasury funded repairs to the temple (2Kings 12:7; Ezra 7:20).
Invading kings frequently raided the temple treasury, including Shishak of Egypt (1Kings 14:26), Jehoash of Israel (2Kings 14:14), and finally Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (2Kings 24:13; Dan. 1:2), as foretold by Jeremiah (Jer. 15:13). On other occasions, the kings of Judah drew money from the treasury to make tribute payments to foreign rulers (1Kings 15:18; 2Kings 12:18; 16:8; 18:15). “Treasury” can also refer to a private account (Prov. 8:21).
Jesus taught that his followers should store up their treasures in heaven and not on earth (Matt. 6:1921). Earthly treasures will be destroyed over time or perhaps even stolen. In this vein, he urged the rich young ruler to sell his possessions so he might have “treasure in heaven” (Matt. 19:21).
The English term “witness” occurs in both Testaments numerous times, with a wide range of meanings. One common meaning relates to someone who gives legal testimony and to the legitimacy of that testimony (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:1516, 18; Prov. 12:17; Isa. 8:16, 20). Throughout the NT the term occurs primarily in the context of someone bearing witness—especially God—or testifying to something (Rom. 1:9; 2Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8; 1Thess. 2:5, 10), though it also has a forensic dimension in regard to one who establishes legal testimony (e.g., Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2Cor. 13:1; 1Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).
Central to the concept of witness is the truthfulness of the witness. This was a vital component of the OT concept of witness. Thus, in legal proceedings a lone witness was insufficient to establish testimony against anyone (Deut. 17:6). This principle carries over into the NT (cf. Matt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1). Such truthfulness was so significant that the ninth commandment expressly forbids bearing false witness (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Prov. 19:5, 9).
Truth-telling was not something that the people of Israel were called to merely among themselves. They were to be God’s witnesses to the nations (Isa. 43:10; 44:8). As witnesses of God’s existence and holiness, they were called to be separate from the nations (Exod. 19:6) and to be a light to them (Isa. 49:6). Tragically, Israel failed in this responsibility and was deemed “blind” (Isa. 42:19).
The NT continues the concept that the people of God are to be God’s witnesses. John the Baptist is commissioned “to testify concerning that light” (John 1:7). It is in this context that Jesus later declares himself to be “the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). Jesus himself is the exemplar of a “faithful witness” (Rev. 1:5). And his followers, whom he has designated as “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), are then called to bear witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).
“Witness” is also employed in terms of a legal testimony regarding what one has seen. That the disciples were intent on establishing such legal testimony is evident in their stipulation that the person to replace Judas Iscariot be someone from among those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his ascension, so that “one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:22). This forensic aspect of witness appears in the close of the Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (21:24). Paul demonstrates this forensic concern for witnesses when he references Peter, the Twelve, some five hundred others, and himself as among those who have witnessed the resurrection (1Cor. 15:3–8).
Throughout Revelation there resides a direct link between Christians bearing witness and suffering, and perhaps dying, as a consequence of this witness. This is evident in the mention of Antipas, who was martyred, and is then designated as “my faithful witness” (Rev. 2:13). Also, the two unnamed witnesses in 11:1–12, who explicitly function as witnesses, are the subject of attack and are eventually murdered. Their murder occurs only after they have finished “their testimony” (11:7).
It is this association of persecution and martyrdom that likely leads to the second-century employment of “martyr” as a designation for those who bear witness to Christ to the point of death.
Direct Matches
Typesof Crosses
Across is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were eithertied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross couldhave several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at allbut rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. Thissimple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with theaddition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. TheLatin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly usedby the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, whichallowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another formof cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, wasshaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the uprightbeam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is alsoknown as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that theapostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. Across shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in thecenter.
Crucifixionin Ancient Times
Inancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by manypeoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians,the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’sbarbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheadedfirst, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stakeor spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalementoriginally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut.21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10).But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, stillalive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method ofexecution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice ofimpalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’sofficials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). Inthese verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as“gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,”and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period.Impalement became a common form of execution.
Impalementas a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion.Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normalmethods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil,impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick andeasy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion,a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims ona stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousandinhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in332 BC.
Thereis no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or across as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferredmethod of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev.20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public displayof an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole”after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used inthe book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39;13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpsehanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devouredby vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not lettingit remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why theJews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before theSabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree wasespecially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curseupon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hungon the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).
Crucifixionin New Testament Times
Notlong before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish rulerAlexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees whoopposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character forthe Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as wellas by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans whoperfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romanscalled crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because itwas intended for the lowest members of society. It became thepreferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion,spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common inNT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperorConstantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolishedcrucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christiansacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.
RomanCrucifixion
Crucifixionwas a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim waseither nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long,agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensivecriminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists(Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonlywere crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens wereexempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor.Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war asvictors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies uponcrosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strengthand intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners strippedtheir victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in publicplaces where onlookers could gaze in horror.
Criminalsoften were flogged severely before crucifixion in apseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experiencedon the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post,and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips withsharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Suchfloggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrailsexposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhaustedthemselves or were called off by their commanding officers.
Afterthe flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, oftenweighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shouldersto the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standingseven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and wasused repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretchedout across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’sarms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollowspot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near thecarpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak tosupport the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was astronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the armsmade the choice of little consequence. Either location wasacceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through bothwrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary tooffer the victim a narcotic co*cktail to help ease the pain ofcrucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).
Afterthe victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoistedup and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on thefatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerableamount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatichypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid verticalshift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would dropto half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequentlyfainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during thisupward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’“lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus wasquite literally lifted up onto the cross.
Nextcame the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different waysof nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious fortwisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing themto the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretcheddownward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A supportblock typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight ofthe body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named“Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north ofJerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side ofthe heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driventhrough both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailedto opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddlethe cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nailwas driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearingfree. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “theone hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, thevictim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to thehot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road(cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirstwas brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements(John 19:28).
Becausedeath could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by acrushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to pushtheir bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their bloodcirculating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain andusually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death followingsoon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approachedto break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what waswritten in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will bebroken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20).Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear intohis side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water,indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was tofulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they havepierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were lefton the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. TheJews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucifiedwith him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening(John 19:31).
PhysicalDeath by Crucifixion
Deathby crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The mostobvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven throughthe extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim losta lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified alsoplayed a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to adepletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs faileddue to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death wassuffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on thecross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so thevictims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deepbreaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower untilthe lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumesof air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by usingtheir legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victimfrom pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason forbreaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.
Theultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massiveblood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and bloodpressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress.This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of bloodand water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, theright side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sacthat surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. Thesoldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing bothblood and water to flow out.
TheMeaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion
TheOT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev.17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar forthe sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins ofthe world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatestatoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for anew covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). Thecross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died“for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shameof the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood(Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).
Jesusalso bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross.The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’scurse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’scurse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).
Jesusdemonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by hisobedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesusthe cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for aworthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love inthe Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and followhis example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ crossis a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.
Mostof all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offeredhis Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, whowillingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).
The divine name, YHWH, revealed to Moses (Exod. 3:14) isrelated to hayah, the Hebrew verb for “to be.” The LXXrenders this name with the phrase “I am” (egō eimi),which later OT writings employ as a title for God (Isa. 43:25; 51:12;52:6).
Asignificant feature in the Fourth Gospel is John’s record ofseven predicated “I am” statements within Jesus’teaching: “I am the bread of life” (6:35); “I amthe light of the world” (8:12); “I am the gate for thesheep” (10:7); “I am the good shepherd” (10:11); “Iam the resurrection and the life” (11:25); “I am the wayand the truth and the life” (14:6); and “I am the truevine” (15:1). With each metaphor Jesus expresses a contrastbetween himself and another. For instance, Jesus’ claim to bethe bread of life differentiates him from the manna that appeared inthe wilderness (6:49), while his identification as the good shepherdstands in contrast to the hired hand who abandons the sheep in a timeof trouble (10:12–13). In these instances “I am” islikely an intentional choice meant to echo the divine name and revealJesus’ relationship of unity with God the Father.
Themeaning of additional unpredicated but emphatic “I am”declarations in Greek by Jesus is debated (Mark 6:50; 14:62; Luke24:39; John 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5). In response to Jesus’declaration of “I am,” the high priest accuses him ofblasphemy (Mark 14:64), the Jews desire to stone him (John 8:59), andthe officials who come to arrest him “[draw] back and [fall] tothe ground” (John 18:6). These reactions suggest that at leastsome who heard Jesus utter these words interpreted them as his claimto equality with God (cf. John 5:18).
In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic andreligious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day,Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually theterm began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense,and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a wholeand religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as theinalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3;John 2:6).
TheGospels
Inthe Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely inthe phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus(Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born asthe king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the lawof Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized theimportance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27),and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the lawwithout carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not onlybecause they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also becausethey viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing theirreligious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).
TheJews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g.,Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes(the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not acceptJesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions ordenying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generallyaccepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal andother benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upperclass is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the“Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew andLuke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewishcities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating thatresistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among theJews.
Jesusresponded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation(Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servantof a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of thisGentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects ofthe kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” becauseof unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham inthe kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief ofthe Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first.Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that theyshould not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of theSamaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel”(Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).
Theterm “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synopticsoutside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-onetimes in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as atechnical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and hisfollowers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on theirrejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in uniquerelationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “oneand only”(monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what thetemple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent.John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much morewidespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting theJews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty toJewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57;9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).
Actsand the Pauline Letters
Inthe book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences)is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who opposePaul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12,14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).
Inhis letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnicand religious sense without connoting that they have theologicalantagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with theGentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirsis the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants,the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises”(Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identitythrough their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews fromfalse Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption.Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; andcircumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by thewritten code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from falseJews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel(9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is theresult of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OTprophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “childrenof Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3(Gal. 3:7–8).
Paul’spresentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statementthat the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’schildren but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44).In 1John the children of God are defined in terms of loverather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book ofRevelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, butare a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passagesshow that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather thanthrough the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaiclaw (Rom. 3:20–28).
Thesepolemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make theNT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes isneither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of theJews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who hascome in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.
Scientifically, light may be described as electromagneticradiation, exhibiting qualities of both waves and particles,traveling 186,282 miles per second from a light source, such as thesun or a lightbulb. In contrast, ancient Mediterranean thoughtpresupposes that light, a kind of fire and fundamental constituent ofmatter, emanates from the human eye like a beam; and for some, theintensity of its radiance and luminosity depends upon the moralityand direction of the seer’s heart. Even today, many Europeansare fearful of the “evil eye,” when a person is able tocurse other human beings by merely looking at them. Jesus refers tothe evil eye as emanating from an evil heart (Mark 7:22 [NIV:“envy”]; see also Gal. 3:1). Contemporary experiences ofthis seemingly counterintuitive reversal of empirical reality are thecommon perception of being watched from behind (turning and seeingthat, in fact, this was the case), the luminous screen of theimagination, dreams after closing one’s eyes, and expressionssuch as Shakespeare’s “death-darting eye.”
Jesusappropriates this popular assumption for the sake of his point: “Theeye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your wholebody will be full of light” (Matt. 6:22). Another way oftranslating the verse is “If the eye is focused, your wholebody will be enlightened.” In the larger context, Jesus isexhorting disciples to turn their eyes from Mammon (wealth as anidol) to God’s throne, where their real treasure is (Matt.6:19–24). He claims that only those with pure hearts will seeGod (Matt. 5:8). Paul speaks of the “eyes of your heart”(Eph. 1:18), which are opened by the Holy Spirit—a phenomenonthat he experienced on the way to Damascus, which, ironically, led tothe temporary blindness of his eyes to see Christ, who was at theright hand of the Father in heaven (Acts 9:1–19; cf. 2Cor.3:7–18). The Bible does not require that light be limited toeither the scientifically objective or the experientially subjectiveperspective; it appropriates the phenomenon to elucidate a deeperreality to creation and God, the possibility of seeing the lightbeyond light.
Godbegins his creation with light, which precedes the creation of sun,moon, and stars and throughout Scripture is an unqualified good (Gen.1:3–5, 15–18; Exod. 10:23; 13:21). The comfort of lightis more difficult to appreciate in a world that runs on electricity.In the ancient world, people rarely traveled at night and usuallywent to bed soon after sunset. The only light in the home was a smalloil lamp set on a stand, which burned expensive olive oil. Light is abiblical synonym for life (Job 3:20; John 8:12). Seeing the lightmeans living (Ps. 49:19; see also Job 33:30). Conversely, darkness isoften a symbol of adversity, disaster, and death (Job 30:26; Isa.8:22; Jer. 23:12; Lam. 3:2). Death is likened to the extinguishing ofa flame (Prov. 13:9; Sir. 22:11). God initially overcame the chaoticdarkness when he created light, and ultimately God’s own glorywill replace light in the new heavens and earth (Rev. 21:23–25).It is therefore not surprising that God is often associated withlight (James 1:13–18).
John,who offers perhaps the most profound meditations on light, claimsthat God is light (1John 1:5). The predicate appropriates theintrinsic beauty of light, a quality that draws people’s heartsback to the author of beauty. For the apostle, light represents truthand signifies God’s will in opposition to the deception of theworld (John 1:9; 12:46). Light stands for purity and signifies God’sholiness as opposed to the unrighteousness of the world (John3:19–21). Light is where God is, and it radiates from the placeof fellowship between God and his creation (John 1:7). See also Lightof the World.
John’s Gospel features teachings of Jesus during theFestival of Booths (7:14–8:59). During this festival, four verylarge menorahs were set up in the court of women in the temple toprovide light for dancing throughout the night (m.Sukkah 5:2).In the same location Jesus says, “I am the light of the world.Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have thelight of life” (John 8:12; cf. Mark 12:41–44). TheMishnah notes that during this festival “there was not acourtyard in Jerusalem which was not lit up” (m.Sukkah5:3). Jesus extends the range of the light to “the world.”He perhaps alludes to Isaiah, who prophesied that even the Gentiles,who live in darkness, will see a great light (Isa. 9:1–2, citedas a fulfillment of prophecy in Matt. 4:14–16). In the Sermonon the Mount, Jesus applies the same epithet, “light of theworld,” to his disciples, who are compared to a lighted city ona mountain (Matt. 5:14). Jesus probably describes an inner light—theeffect of a purified heart—which he juxtaposes with theexternal “shining” of the scribes and the Pharisees(Matt. 6:1–2).
Although the Bible never describes the lamps used by ancientIsrael or the early church, archaeology informs us what they werelike. Early lamps were small pottery bowls with a slight lip for awick. Some had multiple wick holders to produce more light (Zech.4:2). Over time, the lip became a spout to one side. By the Persianperiod, lamps with a covered oil reservoir were imported from Greece.Some lamps, like the seven-branched golden menorah of the tabernacle,were made of metal. During the Roman era, pottery and metal lanternswere developed for outside illumination, replacing torches, which hadbeen used previously (Judg. 7:16). Those who sought Jesus inGethsemane carried both torches and lanterns (John 18:3).
Lampswere commonly found in family dwellings (2Kings 4:10; Matt.5:15). They also played an important role in the tabernacle andtemple (Exod. 25:31–39; 1Kings 7:49), where they not onlyilluminated their interiors but also, having the shape of a tree,symbolically evoked memories of Eden. Lamps could be carried orplaced on a shelf or stand. Since they could hold only enough oliveoil to burn for several hours, a woman who ensured that “herlamp does not go out at night” would have been particularlydiligent (Prov. 31:18).
TheBible frequently uses lamp or light metaphorically. It can symbolizelife (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20) or the continuationof the Davidic line (2Sam. 21:17; 1Kings 11:36; 15:4;2Kings 8:19). Jesus is the light of the world, who givesspiritual life (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; cf. 1:9; 3:19). John theBaptist was a lamp illuminating the way to the Messiah (John 5:35).Jesus’ followers should shine as lights so that the world cansee their good works and praise God (Matt. 5:14–16). God’sword is a lamp to guide one’s way (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23).God himself is a light who enables people to live in difficult times(2Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3). In one of Jesus’ parables, thefoolish virgins who did not prepare enough oil to keep their lampsburning serve as a warning for people to be ready for Christ’sreturn (Matt. 25:1–13).
OldTestament and Jewish Literature
Inthe OT, the phrase “son of man” usually refers tohumanity in general or to a specific individual. The general use of“son of man” occurs in poetic texts in which the phrasefunctions as a synonym for “man” or “human being”(Num. 23:19; Isa. 51:12; Pss. 144:3; 146:3). In Ps. 8:4 (ESV) thepsalmist asks, “What is man that you are mindful of him, andthe son of man that you care for him?” Echoing the creation ofman in Gen. 1, “man” and “son of man” in thispsalm have a royal status: being “crowned with glory and honor”and receiving dominion over all of God’s creation (Ps. 8:5–6).Later, in Ps. 80:17, “son of man” refers to the nation ofIsrael. The psalmist supplicates that God would make strong forhimself the “son of man” over Israel’s enemies(80:12–16). In Ezekiel, God addresses the prophet himself as“son of man,” possibly indicating his human statuscompared with God or, alternatively, highlighting his unique statusas God’s prophet in contrast with the rest of humanity.
Oneof the most crucial OT “son of man” texts is Dan. 7because of its influence on the “Son of Man” in theGospel tradition. Scholars debate the date of the composition of thischapter. While some argue for the sixth century BC, others prefer asecond-century BC date during the oppressive reign of AntiochusIVEpiphanes. The first half of the chapter records Daniel’svision (7:1–14), while the second half contains itsinterpretation (7:15–27). In the vision Daniel sees “onelike a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven” (7:13).This exalted figure contrasts with the first three beasts, which are“like a lion” (7:4), “like a bear” (7:5), and“like a leopard” (7:6). The fourth beast is so gruesomethat it defies comparison with any species of the animal kingdom(7:7). Many agree that the beasts likely refer to ancient worldempires; however, the referent of “one like a son of man”has given rise to much debate. The figure may refer to earthlyIsrael, since at this figure’s vindication he is endowed withauthority and glory. This is precisely what “the holy people ofthe Most High” receive in v.27. In this way, the “onelike a son of man” is a symbol for the persecuted, earthlysaints. Alternatively, the exalted figure could be a heavenly beingsuch as the archangel Gabriel (Dan. 9:21) or Michael (Dan. 10:13;12:1). Here “one like a son of man” is the heavenlycounterpart and leader of suffering Israel and fights a cosmic battleon its behalf.
Insubsequent Jewish literature, the “one like a son of man”from Dan. 7 becomes quite active, appearing to be a development ofthe static image who is “given authority, glory and sovereignpower” (Dan. 7:14). In 1En. 37–71, a text thatdates from the last half of the first century BC to the first half ofthe first century AD, the “Son of Man” is seated upon histhrone and will judge “the kings and the mighty” who havepersecuted faithful Israel (46:4–8; 62:5). At that point, thefaithful ones (i.e., the holy, righteous, and chosen) will be formedinto a new congregation. In another Jewish text that dates from theend of the first century AD, there is a strong echo of the Danielicson of man. In 4Ezra 13, “something like the figure of aman came up out of the heart of the sea” (v.3a). Unlikein 1Enoch, this figure is a warrior who destroys with firethose who attempt to wage war on him. These texts indicate that atleast two traditions developed and reinterpreted the “one likea son of man” from Dan. 7. He becomes an individual whoexecutes judgment in one tradition, and one who executes destructionin another.
NewTestament
Inthe NT the term “Son of Man” occurs mostly in the Gospelsand, with the exception of John 12:34 (where the crowd quotes Jesus),is uttered exclusively by Jesus himself. The phrase, or a variationof it, also occurs in Acts 7:56; Heb. 2:6; Rev. 1:13; 14:14. Unlikein Daniel or 1Enoch, the epithet occurs in the Gospels with thedefinite article, likely indicating that the Son of Man was a knownfigure. Because of this and because the Son of Man in 1Enochand 4Ezra have similar functions, many scholars in themid-twentieth century speculated that in first-century Judaism manyJews believed that the Son of Man would return at the end as saviorand judge. Others suggested that the significance of the phrase isfound in its Aramaic background, bar ’enash’a, which inother texts means “I,” “man,” “a man,”or “someone.” Despite these alternatives, the OT providesthe most helpful background for understanding the Son of Man in theGospels.
TheSon of Man sayings in the Gospels fall within three categories:earthly, suffering-resurrection, and future-vindication sayings.Starting with the earthly sayings, in Mark 2:10, for example, the Sonof Man has “authority on earth to forgive sins,” and in2:28 he exercises dominion over the Sabbath. Although in Daniel theSon of Man does not receive such authority until his appearance inYahweh’s presence at his vindication, the Son of Man in theGospels exercises such authority during his earthly ministry. Jesusalso predicts that the Son of Man will suffer, die, and be raisedagain. In Mark, these suffering-resurrection predictions occur threetimes (8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34). Echoing Dan. 7, this plight ofJesus recalls the suffering of the holy ones caused by the littlehorn (v.21). If the “one like a son of man”represents the holy ones in their vindication, then it is reasonablethat he does so in their suffering as well; however, the text ofDaniel is silent on this point. Finally, the clearest reference toDan. 7 occurs in the future-vindication sayings. In Mark 13:26; 14:62the Son of Man comes with/on the clouds, which points to hisvindication over the Sanhedrin, the dominant adversaries of Jesus inMark. Matthew appears to develop even more than Mark the judicialresponsibilities of the Son of Man (Matt. 13:41–43; 25:31–33).Meanwhile, in Luke the church must stay alert and be prepared for thereturn of the Son of Man (Luke 12:39–40; 17:22–37;21:34–36).
InActs, the vision that Stephen witnesses confirms that the Son of Manhas indeed been exalted to the right hand of God (Acts 7:56). In theGospel of John, the epithet is used as the object of the verbs “tolift up” and “to glorify,” so that the death ofJesus is a form of exaltation (John 8:28; 12:23; 13:31), whichreflects his current exalted status in early Christian thinking.Finally, the Son of Man in Revelation is in the heavenly templefunctioning as both judge and caretaker of the seven churches (Rev.1:12–20) and reaps the saints while “seated on the cloud”(14:14–16).
The English term “witness” occurs in bothTestaments numerous times, with a wide range of meanings. One commonmeaning relates to someone who gives legal testimony and to thelegitimacy of that testimony (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15–16,18; Prov. 12:17; Isa. 8:16, 20). Throughout the NT the term occursprimarily in the context of someone bearing witness—especiallyGod—or testifying to something (Rom. 1:9; 2Cor. 1:23;Phil. 1:8; 1Thess. 2:5, 10), though it also has a forensicdimension in regard to one who establishes legal testimony (e.g.,Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2Cor. 13:1; 1Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).
Centralto the concept of witness is the truthfulness of the witness. Thiswas a vital component of the OT concept of witness. Thus, in legalproceedings a lone witness was insufficient to establish testimonyagainst anyone (Deut. 17:6). This principle carries over into the NT(cf. Matt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1). Such truthfulness was sosignificant that the ninth commandment expressly forbids bearingfalse witness (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Prov. 19:5, 9).
Truth-tellingwas not something that the people of Israel were called to merelyamong themselves. They were to be God’s witnesses to thenations (Isa. 43:10; 44:8). As witnesses of God’s existence andholiness, they were called to be separate from the nations (Exod.19:6) and to be a light to them (Isa. 49:6). Tragically, Israelfailed in this responsibility and was deemed “blind”(Isa. 42:19).
TheNT continues the concept that the people of God are to be God’switnesses. John the Baptist is commissioned “to testifyconcerning that light” (John 1:7). It is in this context thatJesus later declares himself to be “the light of the world”(John 8:12; 9:5). Jesus himself is the exemplar of a “faithfulwitness” (Rev. 1:5). And his followers, whom he has designatedas “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), are then calledto bear witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).
“Witness”is also employed in terms of a legal testimony regarding what one hasseen. That the disciples were intent on establishing such legaltestimony is evident in their stipulation that the person to replaceJudas Iscariot be someone from among those who had been with Jesusfrom the beginning of his ministry to his ascension, so that “oneof these must become a witness with us of his resurrection”(Acts 1:22). This forensic aspect of witness appears in the close ofthe Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies tothese things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony istrue” (21:24). Paul demonstrates this forensic concern forwitnesses when he references Peter, the Twelve, some five hundredothers, and himself as among those who have witnessed theresurrection (1Cor. 15:3–8).
Whilelinguistically the Greek word martys(“witness”) has given rise to the English term “martyr,”at the time of the NT martysdid not connote physical martyrdom. Instead, it is likely that theuse of this term in the book of Revelation and its association withthe deaths of those who faithfully witnessed to Jesus Christ and thegospel in the face of persecution gave rise to its application in thetechnical sense of “martyr.”
ThroughoutRevelation there resides a direct link between Christians bearingwitness and suffering, and perhaps dying, as a consequence of thiswitness. This is evident in the mention of Antipas, who was martyred,and is then designated as “my faithful witness” (Rev.2:13). Also, the two unnamed witnesses in 11:1–12, whoexplicitly function as witnesses, are the subject of attack and areeventually murdered. Their murder occurs only after they havefinished “their testimony” (11:7).
Itis this association of persecution and martyrdom that likely leads tothe second-century employment of “martyr” as adesignation for those who bear witness to Christ to the point ofdeath. See also Martyr.
“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to thespeech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of theseuses, God desires to make himself known to his people. Thecommunication of God is always personal and relational, whether hespeaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address anindividual directly (Gen. 2:16–17; Exod. 3:14). The prophetsand the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatestrevelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who iscalled the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).
Theprimary focus of this article is the written form of the word of God,the Bible. The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternalobject of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119),and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word isparticularized and intimately connected with God himself by means ofthe key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,”“the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,”and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Ourunderstanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms andcontexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found inPsalm 119.
Theologyof the Word
Fromthe perspective of many systematic theologians, the word of God isdefined with several essential labels. The word is the specialrevelation of God to humans—specifically, truth communicatedfrom God to his human creatures by supernatural intervention,including a disclosure of his mind and will, his attributes, and hisredemptive plans. This revealed word is inspired. Inspiration is anact of the Holy Spirit of God whereby he superintended the biblicalauthors so that they composed the canonical books of Scripture.Inspiration is verbal and plenary in that it extends to every part ofthe Bible and includes the choice of words used by the authors.
Theword of God is inerrant, free from error in every matter addressed,and infallible, true in every matter addressed. The locus ofinspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility is the original manuscriptsand not the translations. A translation is reliable when itaccurately reflects the meaning of the inspired originals (Matt.5:18; cf. John 10:35; 17:17; 2Tim. 3:16; 2Pet. 1:21). Andfinally, the word is authoritative. Because the Bible is the divinelyinspired word of God reliably composed in the originals withouterror, it is binding upon people in their relationship with their Godas well as their relationships with their fellow human beings.Biblical authority derives from the eternal character of the divineauthor and the revelatory content of the Scriptures.
Psalm119
Akey OT text extolling the word is Psalm 119 (cf. Pss. 1; 19). Thewriter glorifies God, his word, and his divine directions to peopleby means of an acrostic format that covers the subject of Torahmeditation. Eight synonyms are used for the “word” in thepsalm. The eight are translated in the NIV as “words”(v.57), “promise” (v.58), “statutes”(v.59), “commands” (v.60), “law”(v.61), “laws” (v.62), “precepts”(v.63), and “decrees” (v.64).
ThePs. 119 word vocabulary informs us that God has pierced the darknessof our existence with the light of his word to make himself known tous. The word is his word spoken to us and preserved for us. The psalmalso instructs us that the word is the will of God. When God piercedour darkness, he lit the path of freedom for us with his word. Hedescribed himself, defined righteousness, declared his love,announced his promises, and issued his warnings. Finally, thevocabulary establishes the authority of his word in our lives.Directions, commandments, laws, charges, and divine will ring withthe sound of authority. The word of God is an authoritativeproclamation from God to us that must be obeyed, that must be sought,that cannot be ignored.
Finally,Ps. 119 makes an intimate connection between the content of the word,things spoken, and the author of the things spoken. This connectionbetter enables us to understand the “Word” as the personof Jesus Christ in John 1. The progressive development of verses 1–2of Ps. 119 intimately connects the law of God, his statutes, and him,the one sought with all the heart. Verses 89–96 emphasize thedurability and eternality of the word in keeping with the eternalcharacter of God. In verse 114 the writer parallels God as refugewith putting hope in his word. Here the writer intimately connectsGod as a refuge with his word. In the Hebrew text “you”and “your word” stand side by side. In verses 137–44the writer aligns the righteous God with a righteous word. Accordingto verses 105, 130, 135, God and God’s word give light. Thelife-giving quality of the word and the Lord are proclaimed in verse93. Just as God is to be feared, so is his word (vv. 63, 120).
TheWord of God
Thetheme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT,accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and Godhimself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord JesusChrist (John 1:1; 1John 1:1–4), who took on flesh andblood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. Thesovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in thevision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains ourlives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a justjudgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt.25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
John 8:12-30
is mentioned in the definition.
Bible Texts and VersionsThe NT and the OT have considerably different but partiallyoverlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin witha survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.
Greektexts.Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more thanfive thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a fewverses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have beenclassified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules,lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most importantmanuscripts are listed below.
Theearliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eightof these manuscripts have been identified, and they are representedby a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest ofthese papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions ofthe NT text, the most important papyri are found in the ChesterBeatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from theChester Beatty collection, are from the third century and containlarge sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles,Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva arefour very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preservesmost of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century andcontains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which arepreserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss.33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portionsof Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally,P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Lukeand John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among theremaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourthcentury or before.
Thesecond category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually werewritten on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries.About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up tocomplete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncialsoriginally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number ofmanuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employedwhereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning withzero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known bytheir letter. Among the most important uncials are the following fivemanuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à)dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains theentire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the earlyChristian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd ofHermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designatedas A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions ofMatthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement.Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus(designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It containsalmost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantialportions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’slibrary for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial isCodex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greekand Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few versesfrom 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifthcentury. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus(designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century andcontains virtually all of the four Gospels.
Thethird category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date fromthe ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero.Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliablewitnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or theAlexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy forhaving the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, thelectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscriptsin the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NTpresents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.
Versions.With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire,the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. Theseversions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NTand for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the textwas rendered into a new language. Among the most important earlyversions of the NT are the following.
AsLatin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire,there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliesttranslation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably inthe late second century, though the oldest manuscript (CodexVercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation ofLatin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and inAD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a newtranslation known as the Vulgate.
Anotherfamily of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late secondcentury the four Gospels were translated into a version known as theOld Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that areprobably fifth century. The translation that became the standardSyriac text is the Pesh*tta, which was produced in the early fifthcentury. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, orRevelation because these were not considered canonical among theSyriac churches.
Otherimportant versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian,Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.
OldTestament
Hebrewtexts.The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions andtranslations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named afterthe Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and addedvocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. Themost important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninthcentury to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is theLeningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliestMasoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the AleppoCodex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT exceptfor most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and theCairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua throughKings and also the Prophets.
Althoughthese manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, theirreliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSSbeginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts ofbiblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal andpseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books arerepresented among the scrolls that were found except Esther andNehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at theend of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscriptsare, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the strikingcharacteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity oftext types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close tothe Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar tothe much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greektranslation of the OT).
AnotherHebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which isthe text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT insome respects but also has differences that reflect theologicalinterests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are fromthe twelfth century.
Versions.Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT wastranslated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint(designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of theOT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, theLXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus,Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or earlyfirst century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: theProto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed torevise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text andderives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrewword gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In thesecond century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila,Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recensionback toward the MT.
Anotherimportant early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which areAramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensiveelaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism areTargum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which isquite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometimebefore the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literalto somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuchinclude Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are alsovarious unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT,except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partlyin Aramaic).
Besidesthe Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other importantversions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth centuryAD, the Pesh*tta of the OT was produced, though there is evidencethat there were earlier Syriac translations of some books alreadycirculating. Also important is a group of Latin translations knowncollectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometimeduring the second century AD and were primarily made from alreadyexisting Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT,a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.
Bible Texts and VersionsThe NT and the OT have considerably different but partiallyoverlapping textual histories. For clarity, it is best to begin witha survey of the NT manuscripts and versions.
Greektexts.Although no autographs of the NT books survive, there exist more thanfive thousand Greek texts covering anywhere from a portion of a fewverses up to the complete NT. Traditionally, these texts have beenclassified into five groups: papyri, uncials, minuscules,lectionaries, and quotations in patristic texts. The most importantmanuscripts are listed below.
Theearliest texts of the NT are those written on papyrus. Ninety-eightof these manuscripts have been identified, and they are representedby a “P” with a numerical superscript. The earliest ofthese papyri is P52, which contains parts of four verses in John 18and dates to the early second century. For substantial portions ofthe NT text, the most important papyri are found in the ChesterBeatty and Bodmer collections. P45, P46, and P47, all from theChester Beatty collection, are from the third century and containlarge sections of the four Gospels, eight of the Pauline Epistles,Hebrews, and Revelation. Within the Bodmer collection in Geneva arefour very important codices. P66 dates to around AD 200 and preservesmost of the Gospel of John. P72 dates to the third century andcontains the earliest copies of 1–2 Peter and Jude, which arepreserved in their entirety, as well as Greek translations of Pss.33–34. P74 dates to the seventh century and contains portionsof Acts, James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude. Finally,P75, which dates to the early third century, contains most of Lukeand John 1–15. It is the oldest extant copy of Luke. Among theremaining papyri, forty-three have been dated to the early fourthcentury or before.
Thesecond category of manuscripts is the uncials, which usually werewritten on parchment and span the fourth through the tenth centuries.About 270 uncials are known, and they range from a few verses up tocomplete copies of the NT or even the entire Bible. Uncialsoriginally were denoted by capital letters, but when the number ofmanuscripts grew beyond these limits, a new system was employedwhereby each manuscript was given a number always beginning withzero. However, the most important uncials are still usually known bytheir letter. Among the most important uncials are the following fivemanuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus (designated by the Hebrew letter à)dates to the fourth century and is the only uncial that contains theentire NT. It also has almost all of the OT as well as the earlyChristian writings the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd ofHermas. Dating from the fifth century, Codex Alexandrinus (designatedas A) contains the OT, most of the NT—lacking only portions ofMatthew, John, and 2 Corinthians—and 1–2 Clement.Along with Sinaiticus, the most important uncial is Codex Vaticanus(designated as B), which dates to the fourth century. It containsalmost all of the OT and the complete NT, except for substantialportions between Hebrews and Revelation. It has been in the Vatican’slibrary for over five hundred years. The fourth important uncial isCodex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as D), which contains Greekand Latin copies of the four Gospels, most of Acts, and a few versesfrom 3 John. It dates from the late fourth or early fifthcentury. The fifth important uncial is Codex Washingtonianus(designated as W), which dates to the early fifth century andcontains virtually all of the four Gospels.
Thethird category of NT manuscripts is minuscules. These texts date fromthe ninth century and later and comprise approximately 2,800manuscripts, which are denoted by a number not beginning with zero.Among the more important minuscules are Codex 1, Codex 13, and Codex33, which, along with their relatives, are considered reliablewitnesses to early families of texts such as the Caesarean (1) or theAlexandrian (33). Codex 13 and its relatives are noteworthy forhaving the story of the adulterous woman at the end of Luke 21instead of in John 8. The final two groups of NT manuscripts, thelectionaries and quotations in patristic sources, are not manuscriptsin the strict sense of the term, but their use of portions of the NTpresents important witnesses for the practice of textual criticism.
Versions.With the spread of Christianity during the time of the Roman Empire,the NT was translated into the language of the native peoples. Theseversions of the NT are important both for textual criticism of the NTand for the interpretive decisions that are reflected in how the textwas rendered into a new language. Among the most important earlyversions of the NT are the following.
AsLatin began to displace Greek as the dominant language of the empire,there was a need for a Latin version of the Bible. The earliesttranslation, known as the Old Latin or Itala, was made probably inthe late second century, though the oldest manuscript (CodexVercellensis) is from the fourth century. With the proliferation ofLatin texts a standardized Latin translation became desirable, and inAD 382 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to provide a newtranslation known as the Vulgate.
Anotherfamily of NT versions is the Syriac texts. Around the late secondcentury the four Gospels were translated into a version known as theOld Syriac. It is extant in two incomplete manuscripts that areprobably fifth century. The translation that became the standardSyriac text is the Pesh*tta, which was produced in the early fifthcentury. It does not contain 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, orRevelation because these were not considered canonical among theSyriac churches.
Otherimportant versions of the NT from antiquity are the Coptic, Armenian,Georgian, and Ethiopic translations.
OldTestament
Hebrewtexts.The text that has served as the basis for most modern editions andtranslations of the Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text (MT), named afterthe Masoretes, the Jewish scribes who transmitted the text and addedvocalization, accentuation, and notes to the consonantal text. Themost important Masoretic manuscripts date from the end of the ninthcentury to the early eleventh century. Notable among these is theLeningrad Codex (AD 1008), denoted as L, which is the earliestMasoretic manuscript of the entire OT. Also important are the AleppoCodex (c. AD 925), denoted as A, which preserves all of the OT exceptfor most of the Pentateuch; the British Museum MS Or. 4445 (c. AD925), denoted as B, which contains most of the Pentateuch; and theCairo Codex (c. AD 896), denoted C, which contains Joshua throughKings and also the Prophets.
Althoughthese manuscripts are much later than the biblical period, theirreliability was largely confirmed with the discovery of the DSSbeginning in 1947. Among the Qumran library are many manuscripts ofbiblical books as well as biblical commentaries, apocrphyal andpseudepigraphal works, and sectarian literature. All the OT books arerepresented among the scrolls that were found except Esther andNehemiah, though the latter is usually presumed to have been at theend of Ezra but has not survived. The books with the most manuscriptsare, in order, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah. One of the strikingcharacteristics of these scrolls is that they reflect a diversity oftext types. For example, there is a copy of Jeremiah that is close tothe Masoretic version, but also a manuscript of Jeremiah similar tothe much shorter version found in the Septuagint (the Greektranslation of the OT).
AnotherHebrew text of the OT is that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which isthe text transmitted by the Samaritans. It is similar to the MT insome respects but also has differences that reflect theologicalinterests. The main manuscripts for the Samaritan Pentateuch are fromthe twelfth century.
Versions.Between the third and first centuries BC, the entire OT wastranslated into Greek. This version, known as the Septuagint(designated by the abbreviation LXX), became the main version of theOT used by the early church. Due to its adoption by the church, theLXX has been preserved in numerous manuscripts, including Sinaiticus,Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. By the late first century BC or earlyfirst century AD, there were two revisions of the Greek text: theProto-Lucianic version and the Kaige recension. The latter aimed torevise the Greek toward closer conformity with the Hebrew text andderives its name from its peculiar tendency to translate the Hebrewword gam (“also”) with the Greek work kaige. In thesecond century AD three other Greek translations were made by Aquila,Theodotion, and Symmachus, all of which revised the Kaige recensionback toward the MT.
Anotherimportant early version of the OT consists of the Targumim, which areAramaic translations or paraphrases (and sometimes extensiveelaborations) of OT books. The official Targumim for Judaism areTargum Onqelos for the Pentateuch (c. second century AD), which isquite literal, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan for the Prophets (sometimebefore the fourth century AD), which ranges from being quite literalto somewhat paraphrastic. Unofficial Targumim for the Pentateuchinclude Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. There are alsovarious unofficial Targumim for the Writings section of the OT,except for Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah (which are already written partlyin Aramaic).
Besidesthe Greek and Aramaic translations, there are other importantversions of the OT. Sometime in either the third or fourth centuryAD, the Pesh*tta of the OT was produced, though there is evidencethat there were earlier Syriac translations of some books alreadycirculating. Also important is a group of Latin translations knowncollectively as the Old Latin. These versions were produced sometimeduring the second century AD and were primarily made from alreadyexisting Greek translations rather than Hebrew texts. As with the NT,a later Latin translation was made by Jerome for the Vulgate.
Typesof Crosses
Across is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were eithertied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross couldhave several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at allbut rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. Thissimple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with theaddition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. TheLatin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly usedby the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, whichallowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another formof cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, wasshaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the uprightbeam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is alsoknown as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that theapostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. Across shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in thecenter.
Crucifixionin Ancient Times
Inancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by manypeoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians,the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’sbarbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheadedfirst, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stakeor spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalementoriginally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut.21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10).But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, stillalive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method ofexecution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice ofimpalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’sofficials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). Inthese verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as“gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,”and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period.Impalement became a common form of execution.
Impalementas a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion.Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normalmethods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil,impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick andeasy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion,a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims ona stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousandinhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in332 BC.
Thereis no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or across as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferredmethod of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev.20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public displayof an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole”after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used inthe book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39;13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpsehanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devouredby vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not lettingit remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why theJews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before theSabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree wasespecially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curseupon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hungon the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).
Crucifixionin New Testament Times
Notlong before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish rulerAlexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees whoopposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character forthe Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as wellas by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans whoperfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romanscalled crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because itwas intended for the lowest members of society. It became thepreferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion,spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common inNT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperorConstantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolishedcrucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christiansacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.
RomanCrucifixion
Crucifixionwas a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim waseither nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long,agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensivecriminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists(Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonlywere crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens wereexempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor.Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war asvictors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies uponcrosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strengthand intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners strippedtheir victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in publicplaces where onlookers could gaze in horror.
Criminalsoften were flogged severely before crucifixion in apseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experiencedon the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post,and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips withsharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Suchfloggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrailsexposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhaustedthemselves or were called off by their commanding officers.
Afterthe flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, oftenweighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shouldersto the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standingseven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and wasused repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretchedout across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’sarms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollowspot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near thecarpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak tosupport the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was astronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the armsmade the choice of little consequence. Either location wasacceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through bothwrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary tooffer the victim a narcotic co*cktail to help ease the pain ofcrucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).
Afterthe victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoistedup and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on thefatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerableamount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatichypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid verticalshift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would dropto half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequentlyfainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during thisupward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’“lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus wasquite literally lifted up onto the cross.
Nextcame the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different waysof nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious fortwisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing themto the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretcheddownward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A supportblock typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight ofthe body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named“Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north ofJerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side ofthe heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driventhrough both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailedto opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddlethe cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nailwas driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearingfree. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “theone hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, thevictim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to thehot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road(cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirstwas brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements(John 19:28).
Becausedeath could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by acrushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to pushtheir bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their bloodcirculating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain andusually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death followingsoon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approachedto break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what waswritten in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will bebroken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20).Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear intohis side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water,indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was tofulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they havepierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were lefton the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. TheJews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucifiedwith him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening(John 19:31).
PhysicalDeath by Crucifixion
Deathby crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The mostobvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven throughthe extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim losta lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified alsoplayed a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to adepletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs faileddue to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death wassuffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on thecross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so thevictims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deepbreaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower untilthe lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumesof air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by usingtheir legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victimfrom pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason forbreaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.
Theultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massiveblood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and bloodpressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress.This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of bloodand water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, theright side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sacthat surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. Thesoldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing bothblood and water to flow out.
TheMeaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion
TheOT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev.17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar forthe sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins ofthe world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatestatoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for anew covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). Thecross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died“for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shameof the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood(Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).
Jesusalso bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross.The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’scurse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’scurse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).
Jesusdemonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by hisobedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesusthe cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for aworthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love inthe Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and followhis example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ crossis a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.
Mostof all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offeredhis Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, whowillingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).
Typesof Crosses
Across is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were eithertied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross couldhave several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at allbut rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. Thissimple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with theaddition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. TheLatin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly usedby the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, whichallowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another formof cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, wasshaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the uprightbeam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is alsoknown as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that theapostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. Across shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in thecenter.
Crucifixionin Ancient Times
Inancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by manypeoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians,the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’sbarbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheadedfirst, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stakeor spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalementoriginally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut.21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10).But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, stillalive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method ofexecution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice ofimpalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’sofficials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). Inthese verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as“gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,”and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period.Impalement became a common form of execution.
Impalementas a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion.Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normalmethods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil,impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick andeasy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion,a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims ona stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousandinhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in332 BC.
Thereis no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or across as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferredmethod of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev.20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public displayof an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole”after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used inthe book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39;13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpsehanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devouredby vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not lettingit remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why theJews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before theSabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree wasespecially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curseupon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hungon the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).
Crucifixionin New Testament Times
Notlong before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish rulerAlexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees whoopposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character forthe Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as wellas by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans whoperfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romanscalled crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because itwas intended for the lowest members of society. It became thepreferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion,spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common inNT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperorConstantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolishedcrucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christiansacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.
RomanCrucifixion
Crucifixionwas a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim waseither nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long,agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensivecriminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists(Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonlywere crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens wereexempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor.Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war asvictors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies uponcrosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strengthand intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners strippedtheir victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in publicplaces where onlookers could gaze in horror.
Criminalsoften were flogged severely before crucifixion in apseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experiencedon the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post,and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips withsharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Suchfloggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrailsexposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhaustedthemselves or were called off by their commanding officers.
Afterthe flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, oftenweighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shouldersto the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standingseven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and wasused repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretchedout across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’sarms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollowspot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near thecarpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak tosupport the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was astronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the armsmade the choice of little consequence. Either location wasacceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through bothwrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary tooffer the victim a narcotic co*cktail to help ease the pain ofcrucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).
Afterthe victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoistedup and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on thefatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerableamount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatichypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid verticalshift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would dropto half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequentlyfainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during thisupward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’“lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus wasquite literally lifted up onto the cross.
Nextcame the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different waysof nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious fortwisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing themto the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretcheddownward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A supportblock typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight ofthe body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named“Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north ofJerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side ofthe heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driventhrough both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailedto opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddlethe cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nailwas driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearingfree. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “theone hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, thevictim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to thehot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road(cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirstwas brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements(John 19:28).
Becausedeath could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by acrushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to pushtheir bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their bloodcirculating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain andusually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death followingsoon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approachedto break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what waswritten in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will bebroken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20).Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear intohis side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water,indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was tofulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they havepierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were lefton the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. TheJews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucifiedwith him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening(John 19:31).
PhysicalDeath by Crucifixion
Deathby crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The mostobvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven throughthe extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim losta lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified alsoplayed a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to adepletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs faileddue to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death wassuffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on thecross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so thevictims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deepbreaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower untilthe lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumesof air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by usingtheir legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victimfrom pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason forbreaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.
Theultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massiveblood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and bloodpressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress.This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of bloodand water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, theright side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sacthat surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. Thesoldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing bothblood and water to flow out.
TheMeaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion
TheOT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev.17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar forthe sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins ofthe world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatestatoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for anew covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). Thecross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died“for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shameof the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood(Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).
Jesusalso bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross.The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’scurse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’scurse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).
Jesusdemonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by hisobedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesusthe cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for aworthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love inthe Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and followhis example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ crossis a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.
Mostof all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offeredhis Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, whowillingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).
Typesof Crosses
Across is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were eithertied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross couldhave several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at allbut rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. Thissimple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with theaddition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. TheLatin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly usedby the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, whichallowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another formof cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, wasshaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the uprightbeam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is alsoknown as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that theapostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. Across shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in thecenter.
Crucifixionin Ancient Times
Inancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by manypeoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians,the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’sbarbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheadedfirst, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stakeor spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalementoriginally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut.21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10).But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, stillalive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method ofexecution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice ofimpalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’sofficials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). Inthese verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as“gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,”and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period.Impalement became a common form of execution.
Impalementas a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion.Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normalmethods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil,impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick andeasy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion,a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims ona stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousandinhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in332 BC.
Thereis no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or across as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferredmethod of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev.20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public displayof an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole”after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used inthe book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39;13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpsehanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devouredby vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not lettingit remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why theJews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before theSabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree wasespecially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curseupon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hungon the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).
Crucifixionin New Testament Times
Notlong before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish rulerAlexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees whoopposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character forthe Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as wellas by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans whoperfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romanscalled crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because itwas intended for the lowest members of society. It became thepreferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion,spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common inNT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperorConstantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolishedcrucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christiansacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.
RomanCrucifixion
Crucifixionwas a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim waseither nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long,agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensivecriminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists(Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonlywere crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens wereexempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor.Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war asvictors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies uponcrosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strengthand intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners strippedtheir victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in publicplaces where onlookers could gaze in horror.
Criminalsoften were flogged severely before crucifixion in apseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experiencedon the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post,and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips withsharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Suchfloggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrailsexposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhaustedthemselves or were called off by their commanding officers.
Afterthe flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, oftenweighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shouldersto the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standingseven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and wasused repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretchedout across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’sarms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollowspot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near thecarpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak tosupport the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was astronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the armsmade the choice of little consequence. Either location wasacceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through bothwrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary tooffer the victim a narcotic co*cktail to help ease the pain ofcrucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).
Afterthe victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoistedup and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on thefatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerableamount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatichypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid verticalshift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would dropto half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequentlyfainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during thisupward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’“lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus wasquite literally lifted up onto the cross.
Nextcame the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different waysof nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious fortwisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing themto the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretcheddownward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A supportblock typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight ofthe body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named“Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north ofJerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side ofthe heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driventhrough both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailedto opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddlethe cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nailwas driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearingfree. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “theone hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, thevictim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to thehot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road(cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirstwas brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements(John 19:28).
Becausedeath could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by acrushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to pushtheir bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their bloodcirculating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain andusually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death followingsoon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approachedto break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what waswritten in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will bebroken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20).Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear intohis side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water,indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was tofulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they havepierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were lefton the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. TheJews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucifiedwith him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening(John 19:31).
PhysicalDeath by Crucifixion
Deathby crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The mostobvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven throughthe extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim losta lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified alsoplayed a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to adepletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs faileddue to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death wassuffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on thecross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so thevictims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deepbreaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower untilthe lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumesof air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by usingtheir legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victimfrom pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason forbreaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.
Theultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massiveblood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and bloodpressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress.This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of bloodand water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, theright side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sacthat surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. Thesoldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing bothblood and water to flow out.
TheMeaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion
TheOT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev.17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar forthe sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins ofthe world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatestatoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for anew covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). Thecross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died“for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shameof the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood(Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).
Jesusalso bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross.The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’scurse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’scurse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).
Jesusdemonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by hisobedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesusthe cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for aworthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love inthe Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and followhis example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ crossis a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.
Mostof all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offeredhis Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, whowillingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).
The OT was written in Hebrew, with some parts in Aramaic, butthe NT comes to us exclusively in Greek. Greek developed from anIndo-European language spoken by the people referred to in the Iliadas the Achaeans. It is suggested that primitive Greek speakersmigrated from the area north of the Black Sea and began to settle inthe Aegean Sea area around 2000 BC. These people groups calledthemselves “Hellenes.” Later the Romans called them“Greeks.”
Classicalversus Koine
ClassicalGreek is commonly dated to the years 900–330 BC. Although threenotable dialects of Greek were prevalent (Doric in the west, Aeolicin the north, and Ionic in the east), a dialect of the Ionic familyknown as Attic, the language of Athens and the great writersThucydides, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and Demosthenes, eventuallygained supremacy. It was this form of Greek that Alexander the Greattook with him on his conquests.
Koine(lit., “common”) Greek became the new lingua franca inthe years 330 BC–AD 500. Koine Greek, which itself wasinfluenced by the Hebrew and Aramaic of the OT, was closely relatedto the language of the LXX. This common form of Greek is in part theresult of the imposition of Greek upon nonnative Greek speakers. TheKoine Greek of the NT reflects the style of writing found in thepapyri and ostraca discovered in the Egyptian desert. These writingsare more a nonliterary Koine—found in wills, deeds, receipts,and private letters—and not the polished Greek of the literaryworks. While the literary writers of the day tried to imitate theAttic models by means of an artificial literary tradition, the Greekof the NT has much more in common with the spoken Greek of theaverage person.
Oneof the distinctive elements of Koine Greek at the time of the NT wasthe tendency toward greater simplicity. Although this is a naturaloccurrence within a language over time, it became accelerated whenthe Greek language was forced upon nonnative Greek speakers. TheKoine Greek of the NT, then, may be characterized by the relativeabsence of subtle nuances among words, the replacement of complexforms by simpler ones, and the almost complete disappearance of theoptative mood. Other changes include the increase in the use ofpronouns as subjects, more adverbs, pronunciation and vocabularydifferences, and the tendency toward more-explicit expressions.
Featuresof Biblical Greek
Greekis a highly inflected language. Inflection refers to changes thatwords undergo in accord with their grammatical function in asentence. With regard to verbs, the changes reflect the word’saspect (similar to the English tense [see below]), voice (active orpassive), and mood (generally speaking, mood refers to the author’sattitude toward the kind of reality behind the statement: whether theaction actually took place or whether it is merely a potentiality).For nouns and adjectives, these changes reflect the word’sgender (masculine, feminine, or neuter [similar to the Englishpronouns “he,” “she,” “it”]),number (singular or plural), and case (nominative, genitive, dative,and accusative [technically, a fifth but rarely used case is thevocative]). It cannot be overstated that grammar is always secondaryto context. Thus, one should not seek to find too much meaning in theform of a word, or the meaning of a word, without contextual warrant.
Verbs:tense, aspect, and mood.Whereas English verbs employ tense (past, present, future, pastperfect, etc.), which strongly links the action of the verb to atime, Greek verbs reflect a verbal aspect. Aspect primarily refers tothe way the action of the verb is viewed by the author. Consequently,the time (past, present, future, etc.) is secondary at best. Thisdistinction is especially important for verbs that are not in theindicative mood (the mood utilized by an author to speak in terms ofreality rather than potentiality). In the indicative mood, the aspectgenerally reflects the time of the event.
Foryears, one of the most debated features of biblical Greek was theverb in the aorist tense (aspect). It often was suggested that theaorist reflects a onetime event that occurred in the past. Modernscholarship is nearly unanimous today that the aorist serves insteadas the default aspect. That is, authors used the aorist when notwishing to make any specific pronouncement regarding the action ofthe verb. The aorist functions as the simple or undefined aspect.Therefore, in biblical Greek the statement “I studied Greek,”if in the aorist, would have been the author’s way of simplystating that this event occurred. The use of the aorist alone wouldnot have made any assertion about the duration of the action (Istudied for ten minutes, months, or years) or as to whether this actwas completed (I know Greek well). Thus, John 11:35 says, “Jesuswept.” The use of the aorist here does not tell us how long hewept. Some have argued that since the aorist is used in reference toChrist’s death (Rom. 5:6), it means that Jesus died once andfor all. Although this conviction is true, its truth derives not fromthe use of the aorist, but rather from the context of Scripture.
Twoother aspects occur in the Greek NT. The imperfective aspect regardsan action as a process or as habitual. The perfective aspect viewsthe action as completed with ensuing results (I have studied Greek[and still remember it]).
BiblicalGreek employs two moods. The mood of a Greek verb indicates whetherthe author viewed the action as one that actually occurred or onethat was merely potential. Greek verbs in the indicative mood tend tosuggest that the author viewed the action as something that eitherhas happened, is happening, or will happen. It is very important tonote that in the Greek NT verbs consistently have temporal relationsonly in the indicative mood. The potential mood in biblical Greekdisplays a variety of potentialities. The subjunctive mood oftenexpresses a contingency, a hope, or a desire for the event to occur.The optative mood, which was prominent in Classical Greek but hadfallen almost completely out of use by the time of the NT, expressesa possibility or a wish. The imperative mood is the mood for acommand or prohibition.
Nounsand adjectives: case.Nouns and adjectives are inflected by means of various cases,depending on the function of the noun or the adjective in thesentence.
Thenominative case is used primarily for the subject of a Greeksentence. In the absence of a noun or noun phrase in the nominativecase, the subject of the Greek sentence is found in the pronominalsuffix of the verb. Pronouns in the nominative, though much morecommon in biblical Greek than in Classical Greek, are notgrammatically necessary, and thus they often express a degree ofaccent or stress (cf. the use of “you” and “I”in the Greek text of John 7:8, 28, 34, 36, 47; 8:14, 15, 22, 23, 31,38, 41, 44, 46, 47,49,54).
Thegenitive case is the most varied in its use. Generally speaking, itis the case of possession, source, or separation. Nouns andadjectives in the genitive case are often translated into English byadding the preposition “of.” The ambiguity inherent inthe genitive case is evidenced even in English. Note, for example,Rev. 1:1: “The revelation of [NIV: “from”] JesusChrist” (in Greek, “Jesus Christ” in the genitivecase). Does this mean that the revelation is from Jesus Christ orabout Jesus Christ?
Thedative case is used to indicate location, instrumentality,accompaniment, or reception, as well as for the indirect object ofthe verb. Nouns and adjectives in the dative case are oftentranslated into English by adding the preposition “to” or“for.”
Theaccusative case serves as the primary case for the direct object ofthe verb. This case generally connotes the ideas of extension orlimitation of an act or movement.
Afifth case, less common than the others, is the vocative. Thevocative is reserved for the purpose of direct address. It oftenserves as a discourse marker, as in “My dear children” in1John 2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21.
Wordorder.One of the important by-products of the inflections found in biblicalGreek is the measure of freedom afforded to authors in regard to wordorder (the order of words in a sentence is referred to as syntax).This relative freedom allows authors to emphasize words or phrases bymeans of their location in the sentence.
In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic andreligious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day,Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually theterm began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense,and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a wholeand religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as theinalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3;John 2:6).
TheGospels
Inthe Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely inthe phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus(Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born asthe king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the lawof Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized theimportance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27),and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the lawwithout carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not onlybecause they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also becausethey viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing theirreligious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).
TheJews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g.,Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes(the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not acceptJesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions ordenying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generallyaccepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal andother benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upperclass is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the“Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew andLuke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewishcities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating thatresistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among theJews.
Jesusresponded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation(Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servantof a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of thisGentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects ofthe kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” becauseof unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham inthe kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief ofthe Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first.Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that theyshould not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of theSamaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel”(Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).
Theterm “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synopticsoutside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-onetimes in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as atechnical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and hisfollowers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on theirrejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in uniquerelationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “oneand only”(monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what thetemple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent.John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much morewidespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting theJews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty toJewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57;9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).
Actsand the Pauline Letters
Inthe book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences)is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who opposePaul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12,14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).
Inhis letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnicand religious sense without connoting that they have theologicalantagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with theGentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirsis the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants,the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises”(Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identitythrough their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews fromfalse Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption.Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; andcircumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by thewritten code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from falseJews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel(9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is theresult of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OTprophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “childrenof Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3(Gal. 3:7–8).
Paul’spresentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statementthat the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’schildren but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44).In 1John the children of God are defined in terms of loverather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book ofRevelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, butare a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passagesshow that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather thanthrough the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaiclaw (Rom. 3:20–28).
Thesepolemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make theNT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes isneither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of theJews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who hascome in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.
In the NT, “Jews” (Ioudaioi) is an ethnic andreligious term to describe the people of Judah. In Jesus’ day,Jews were distinguished from Samaritans (John 4:9, 22). Gradually theterm began to be used more in a religious than in an ethnic sense,and it has come to represent the descendants from Abraham as a wholeand religious converts who regard the Mosaic law and customs as theinalienable religious foundation for faith and practices (Mark 7:3;John 2:6).
TheGospels
Inthe Synoptic Gospels the term “Jews” is used largely inthe phrase “the king of the Jews” with reference to Jesus(Matt. 2:2; 27:11, 29; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18; Luke 23:3, 37). Born asthe king of the Jews, Jesus claimed to have come to fulfill the lawof Moses instead of abolishing it (Matt. 5:17). He emphasized theimportance of practicing the law in obedience (Matt. 7:24–27),and he rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes for teaching the lawwithout carrying it out (Matt. 23). They opposed him, not onlybecause they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, but also becausethey viewed his teaching and practices as destabilizing theirreligious status quo (Matt. 12:1–8; John 5:10; 11:48).
TheJews are represented in the Gospels by both the upper class (e.g.,Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, chief priests) and the lower classes(the crowds). Usually the religious upper class would not acceptJesus’ teaching and challenged him by asking questions ordenying his authority (Matt. 15:1; 16:1). The crowds generallyaccepted Jesus’ teaching and experienced his power to heal andother benefits. The Synoptic account of the opposition by the upperclass is contrasted with the widespread opposition to Jesus by the“Jews” in general in John’s Gospel. But Matthew andLuke also highlight Jesus’ lament of the unrepentant Jewishcities (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 10:12–15), indicating thatresistance to Jesus’ teaching was a common phenomenon among theJews.
Jesusresponded to the unbelieving Jews with strong rebuke and condemnation(Matt. 12:30–32; 21:33–46). When Jesus healed a servantof a Roman centurion and marveled at the amazing faith of thisGentile (8:5–13), Jesus predicted that “the subjects ofthe kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” becauseof unbelief, whereas the Gentiles will come to eat with Abraham inthe kingdom of heaven (8:11–12). In spite of the unbelief ofthe Jews, the privilege to hear the gospel was given to them first.Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, instructing them that theyshould not go anywhere among the Gentiles or enter the towns of theSamaritans, but instead go “to the lost sheep of Israel”(Matt. 10:6 [cf. Rom. 1:16]).
Theterm “Jews” occurs only four times in the Synopticsoutside the phrase “king of the Jews,” but seventy-onetimes in the Gospel of John. John uses the term especially as atechnical one for those Jews who were hostile to Jesus and hisfollowers. Whereas the Synoptics focus on the Jewish leaders’rejection of Jesus’ messianic actions, John focuses on theirrejection of his teaching that he is the Son of God in uniquerelationship with the Father. Jesus in John is not only the “oneand only”(monogenēs) of God (1:18), but also the fulfiller of what thetemple signifies and all the Jewish tradition and customs represent.John thus describes the Jewish opposition to Jesus as much morewidespread and intense than that in the Synoptics, presenting theJews as opposing Jesus’ teaching because of their loyalty toJewish tradition (5:15–18; 6:41; 7:1–2, 13; 8:31–57;9:22; 10:31–33; 19:7–12, 38; 20:19).
Actsand the Pauline Letters
Inthe book of Acts the term “Jews” (eighty-one occurrences)is used especially with reference to the Jewish people who opposePaul’s law-free gospel (9:23; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4; 17:5; 18:12,14; 20:3; 21:11; 22:30; 23:12; 24:9).
Inhis letters, Paul refers to “Jews” primarily in an ethnicand religious sense without connoting that they have theologicalantagonism against the gospel. The Jews are thus contrasted with theGentiles in that they are “the people of Israel”: “Theirsis the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants,the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises”(Rom. 9:4). While Paul acknowledges the continuity of Jewish identitythrough their lineage from Abraham, he distinguishes true Jews fromfalse Jews in terms of Jesus’ accomplishment of redemption.Paul says, “A person is a Jew who is one inwardly; andcircumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by thewritten code” (2:29). This distinction of true Jews from falseJews resonates with his distinction of true Israel from false Israel(9:6). The redefinition of the group of spiritual Israelites is theresult of Jesus’ death and resurrection according to the OTprophecies. Those who believe in Jesus are reckoned as “childrenof Abraham” according to the gospel announced in Gen. 12:3(Gal. 3:7–8).
Paul’spresentation of spiritual Jews is foreseen in Jesus’ statementthat the Jews who do not believe in him are not Abraham’schildren but rather the children of the devil (John 8:30–44).In 1John the children of God are defined in terms of loverather than ethnic lineage (3:10). According to the book ofRevelation, those “who say they are Jews” are not, butare a “synagogue of Satan” (2:9; 3:9). These passagesshow that salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus rather thanthrough the ethnic lineage of Abraham and observances of the Mosaiclaw (Rom. 3:20–28).
Thesepolemics against the Jews and Jewish law do not necessarily make theNT teachings anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. What the NT polemicizes isneither the Jewish nation nor Judaism but rather the unbelief of theJews who rejected Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus is the Messiah, who hascome in flesh and fulfilled the prophecies of the OT.
Although the Bible never describes the lamps used by ancientIsrael or the early church, archaeology informs us what they werelike. Early lamps were small pottery bowls with a slight lip for awick. Some had multiple wick holders to produce more light (Zech.4:2). Over time, the lip became a spout to one side. By the Persianperiod, lamps with a covered oil reservoir were imported from Greece.Some lamps, like the seven-branched golden menorah of the tabernacle,were made of metal. During the Roman era, pottery and metal lanternswere developed for outside illumination, replacing torches, which hadbeen used previously (Judg. 7:16). Those who sought Jesus inGethsemane carried both torches and lanterns (John 18:3).
Lampswere commonly found in family dwellings (2Kings 4:10; Matt.5:15). They also played an important role in the tabernacle andtemple (Exod. 25:31–39; 1Kings 7:49), where they not onlyilluminated their interiors but also, having the shape of a tree,symbolically evoked memories of Eden. Lamps could be carried orplaced on a shelf or stand. Since they could hold only enough oliveoil to burn for several hours, a woman who ensured that “herlamp does not go out at night” would have been particularlydiligent (Prov. 31:18).
TheBible frequently uses lamp or light metaphorically. It can symbolizelife (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20) or the continuationof the Davidic line (2Sam. 21:17; 1Kings 11:36; 15:4;2Kings 8:19). Jesus is the light of the world, who givesspiritual life (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; cf. 1:9; 3:19). John theBaptist was a lamp illuminating the way to the Messiah (John 5:35).Jesus’ followers should shine as lights so that the world cansee their good works and praise God (Matt. 5:14–16). God’sword is a lamp to guide one’s way (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23).God himself is a light who enables people to live in difficult times(2Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3). In one of Jesus’ parables, thefoolish virgins who did not prepare enough oil to keep their lampsburning serve as a warning for people to be ready for Christ’sreturn (Matt. 25:1–13).
Although the Bible never describes the lamps used by ancientIsrael or the early church, archaeology informs us what they werelike. Early lamps were small pottery bowls with a slight lip for awick. Some had multiple wick holders to produce more light (Zech.4:2). Over time, the lip became a spout to one side. By the Persianperiod, lamps with a covered oil reservoir were imported from Greece.Some lamps, like the seven-branched golden menorah of the tabernacle,were made of metal. During the Roman era, pottery and metal lanternswere developed for outside illumination, replacing torches, which hadbeen used previously (Judg. 7:16). Those who sought Jesus inGethsemane carried both torches and lanterns (John 18:3).
Lampswere commonly found in family dwellings (2Kings 4:10; Matt.5:15). They also played an important role in the tabernacle andtemple (Exod. 25:31–39; 1Kings 7:49), where they not onlyilluminated their interiors but also, having the shape of a tree,symbolically evoked memories of Eden. Lamps could be carried orplaced on a shelf or stand. Since they could hold only enough oliveoil to burn for several hours, a woman who ensured that “herlamp does not go out at night” would have been particularlydiligent (Prov. 31:18).
TheBible frequently uses lamp or light metaphorically. It can symbolizelife (Job 18:6; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20) or the continuationof the Davidic line (2Sam. 21:17; 1Kings 11:36; 15:4;2Kings 8:19). Jesus is the light of the world, who givesspiritual life (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46; cf. 1:9; 3:19). John theBaptist was a lamp illuminating the way to the Messiah (John 5:35).Jesus’ followers should shine as lights so that the world cansee their good works and praise God (Matt. 5:14–16). God’sword is a lamp to guide one’s way (Ps. 119:105; Prov. 6:23).God himself is a light who enables people to live in difficult times(2Sam. 22:29; Job 29:3). In one of Jesus’ parables, thefoolish virgins who did not prepare enough oil to keep their lampsburning serve as a warning for people to be ready for Christ’sreturn (Matt. 25:1–13).
Showing
1
to
50
of622
results
1. Thinking Metaphorically
Illustration
Scott Hoezee
Do you remember the 60's song by Simon and Garfunkel song which had the line, "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you. What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson? Joltin' Joe has left and gone away." Originally it was part of the soundtrack for the film The Graduate, the song "Mrs. Robinson" has became one of the 1960s' best-known, iconic ballads.
But in a 60 Minutes interview Paul Simon mentioned that some time after the song was released, he received a letter from Joe DiMaggio in which DiMaggio expressed his befuddlement at what in the world that song could mean. DiMaggio wrote, "What do you mean 'Where have I gone?' I haven't gone anywhere! I'm still around I'm selling Mr. Coffee." Then Mr. Simon smiled wryly at Mike Wallace and remarked, "Obviously Mr. DiMaggio is not accustomed to thinking of himself as a metaphor!"
But then, who is? Most, if not all, of us see ourselves as real people with literal, descriptive identities. For instance, I am a pastor, a husband, a father, a committee member, a volunteer, a son these are all straightforward descriptions of who I am in relation to the people around me in life. Like most people, I cannot readily conceive of myself as a symbol for something, as a kind of metaphor that represents something beyond myself.
Indeed, if someone came up to you at a party and said, "You are my shelter from the storms of life," well, you'd be taken aback. Then again, if you met someone who constantly spouted self-referential metaphors, you'd have to wonder about him or her. We expect people to denote themselves by saying things like, "I am a plumber" or "I'm a stay-at-home Dad." But our eyes would widen if someone said, "I am the oil that lubes my company's machine" or "I am the antibody that shields my family from the virus of secularism."
This is not a terribly typical mode of discourse. Yet Jesus, with some frequency, did refer to himself in a metaphorical mode, starting with John 6:35 when Jesus said, "I am the Bread of life."
2. Best Advice
Fortune Magazine asked 19 accomplished people what was the best advice they ever got. Here are some of them: (Don't try to preach all 17 excerpts below. We suggest using 3 to 4 examples that mean the most to your community. Then skip down and use the conclusion to this illustration.)
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, got his from his days at Salomon Brothers: "Always ask for the order, and second, when the customer says yes, stop talking."
Mark Hurd, the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, got his years ago from his days under NCR CEO Chuck Exley who was listening to an executive's presentation. At the end Exley said to the presenter: "Good Story, but it's hard to look smart with bad numbers." Hurd said he has reflected on that over the years, and says, if you "deliver good numbers and you earn the right for people to listen to you."
Indra Nooyi, an India born woman and Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo, says her father was an absolutely wonderful man who taught her: always assume positive intent. Whatever anybody says or does assume positive intent. She went on to say, "you will be amazed how your whole approach to a person or problems becomes very different. If you assume negative intent your anger goes up and your response is random. Assume positive intent and you listen, you're non defensive, and you seek to understand.
Sam Palmisano, the chairman and CEO of IBM, was told this but he has observed it. The most effective leaders, CEO's and head of state, which he has observed, don't make themselves the center of attention. They are respectful and they listen. This makes people comfortable; they open up and speak up.
Eddie Lampert chairman and CEO of Sears Holdings, said that when he was 7, 8, 9, and 10 almost every weekend he and his dad would toss a football in the backyard. He would say, "Go out ten steps and turn to the right." The ball would reach me just as I turned. He asked his dad why he did this. He said, "If I waited for you to turn, you and the defensive player would have an equal chance to get the ball. Your opportunity is gone." His conclusion from those football days in his back yard? Anticipation is the key to investing and business generally.
In 1982 Gen. David Patraeus, then a captain with eight years military experience was weighing various options for his life. His boss Maj. Gen. Jack Galvin, said, "I think you ought to look for an out-of-your-intellectual-comfort-zone experience. He took that advice and went to staff college and then graduate school at Princeton getting his Ph.D. in international relations. There he learned that seriously bright people can think differently about issues and come to very different conclusions about world problems.
Thoams M. Murphy, former CEO of ABC, learned from his father, "Doing the wrong thing is not worth the loss of one night's good sleep."
Nelson Peltz, who along with his father bought Snapple in 1997, learned from his father a very simple lesson about business: "Get sales up, and keep expenses down."
Peter G Peterson, Chairman of the Blackstone group, learned from his professor Milton Friedman, at the University of Chicago, "Focus on those thing that you do better than others."
Joaana Shileds, the president of BEBO.com, says she always goes back to the things that her dad said, "Your career is long and the business world is small. Always act with integrity. Never take the last dollar off the table."
Elon Musj, founder and CEO of SACEX, learned from the very humorous book "The Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy," a very short piece of advice: "Don't Panic." You have to be wary of emotion clouding your decision-making process.
Tina Fey, the comedian from Saturday Night Live, learned from an Oprah Winfrey show, "Always be the only person who can sign your checks."
U. Mark Schneider, the CEO of Frensenius, was pushed by his father to become fluent in English. He told him, "No matter what you are going to do this will give you an edge. The English language is the operating system of the free world."
Tony Robbins, a performance coach, learned that the selection of your friends and advisors matter more than anything else. He got this advice from a personal-development speaker, who said, "Tony, think of it this way, If your worst enemy drops sugar in your coffee, what's the worst think that is going to happen to you? Nothing. But if your best friend drops strychnine in your coffee? You're dead. You have to stand guard at the door of your mind."
CONCLUSION: Perhaps a few of the Disciples would have said that this was the best advice they ever got from Jesus: When you construct your house build it on the rock. When the winds blow and rains come it will still be there after the storm. Those who build on the sand will find otherwise. Many of us can probably articulate the best advice we ever received. We either got it from our Father or Mother or from some teacher or boss. I wonder what Matthew would have said were I to ask him, "What was the best advice you ever got from Jesus?" Perhaps it was this story about the wise and foolish builders.
Being able to identify wise ideas is important; it's even more important to put those ideas into practice. This separates the fool from the philosopher, the simpleton from the sage. Jesus starts his parable with this very warning: Everyone who hears my words and puts them into practice is wise; those who hear and do not are fools. Hearing wisdom is one thing, putting it into practice is another.
But there is a third element here to the wisdom of Jesus' parable that might be easily over looked by careless reading. It is true that Jesus offers the disciples a wise word: Build on rock not sand. That's the obvious first point of the story. Secondarily, he reminds them to put this advice into practice. Now the third: There is the difference between Jesus and every leader, teacher, boss, or father you will ever encounter. Jesus draws a sharp contrast between him and the rest of the world in the phrase "my words." Those who hear MY WORDS and put them into practice. It begs the question: What do you think of THIS man? Will you listen to HIM? Will you practice HIS teachings? Will you live as HE directs?
Will you?
After all Jesus is not talking about building a house here or simply offering this well crafted image of rock and sand as a way to approach life. He is claiming that his Words, his teachings, make the difference between wisdom and folly.
3. The Love of a Father - Sermon Starter
Illustration
King Duncan
It is not easy being a father. One cynic, speaking from his own experience, noted that children go through four fascinating stages. First they call you DaDa. Then they call you Daddy. As they mature they call you Dad. Finally they call you collect.
Today we salute fathers. Dads, we love you. The role of a Christian father is more important in today's world than ever before. It is a different roll than in earlier generations. In most households today Dad is called upon to play more of a nurturing role in caring for children. If Mom works outside the home, Dad must take a more active role in doing household chores. Dad is no longer "lord of the castle." Hopefully, however, he has not been reduced to being another of the vassals.
Today's father needs to be nurturing of his children, supportive of his wife, and yet at the same time provide the spiritual leadership of the home that the Bible accords to fathers. It is a rare man, a special kind of man, who can combine all three of these qualities. We salute Christian fathers this day. Your family needs you more than ever before.
The most common image that Jesus used in describing God was that of "Father." It makes me think that Joseph must have been a very special kind of father. We center much of our attention on his mother, Mary, but Joseph must have also combined those very special qualities of strength and gentleness that we associate with Jesus. Jesus had a very keen knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures. In the Jewish home it was the father who had the primary responsibility for his son's religious instruction. Of course we know that Jesus had an unique relationship with God. Still, I have to believe that Joseph, though barely mentioned in the Gospel narrative, was probably an influential role model for Jesus. Why else would Jesus have chosen the imagery of "Father" to portray God?
In Matthew 10: 29-31 we have one of the most important Scriptural reminders of the love of our Heavenly Father for His children. "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?" Jesus asks, "And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's will. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows." What a moving testimony to the very intimate love that God has for each of us.
1. Sparrows Do Fall from Skies
2. Life's Problems are Not Punishment for Our Sins
3. We Never Fall Beyond the Watchful Eye of the Father.
4. Athanasian Creed
Illustration
Brett Blair
Athanasian Creed:Athanasius, known as Athanasius of Alexandria, was the 20th bishop of Alexandria. His intermittent episcopacy spanned 45 years, of which over 17 encompassed five exiles. He istraditionally thought to be the author of the thisCreed named after him.It was createdto guardNicene Christianity from the heresy of Arianism. It is widely accepted as orthodox and some abbreviated versions of it are still in usetoday. And yes, the intro and outro are actually part of the original text.
Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.
Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.
What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.
Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.
Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.
So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.
Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.
But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.
Now this is the true faith:
That we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
is both God and human, equally.
He is God from the essence of the Father,
begotten before time;
and he is human from the essence of his mother,
born in time;
completely God, completely human,
with a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father as regards divinity,
less than the Father as regards humanity.
Although he is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God's taking humanity to himself.
He is one,
certainly not by the blending of his essence,
but by the unity of his person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.
He suffered for our salvation;
he descended to hell;
he arose from the dead;
he ascended to heaven;
he is seated at the Father's right hand;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people will arise bodily
and give an accounting of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.
This ecumenical creed(428 A.D.) is probably unknown to most Christians because it is seldom, if ever, used in worship services. It is probably not used because of its length. The Nicene Creed has eighteen printed lines, whereas the Athanasian has 69. It is difficult for congregations to use because of the creed's intricate and complex terms.
Though the creed carries the name of Athanasius, he did not write it. It was the product of the church of his time. The creed was named after him to honor him for his brave and forceful defense of the Trinity. Athanasius (289-373) was a bishop in Alexandria, Egypt.
The creed deals primarily with the Trinity and Jesus as the Son of God. At this time, the heresy of Arius was prominent. He taught that Jesus was not fully human or divine and that the Holy Spirit was not God but only a divine influence. The Athanasian Creed denounced these false teachings and upheld the doctrine of the Trinity. Luther's high regard for this creed was expressed: "I doubt, since the days of the Apostles, anything more important and more glorious has ever been written in the church of the New Testament."
5. See the Resemblance
Illustration
Larry Powell
In all prrobablity, you know of some young boy who bears such a striking resemblance to his father that a person would know immediately, even in a crowd, that they were father and son. The father can be seen in the son. The Bible tells us that "God was Christ!" In what ways did the Son resemble the Father?
a. In his life. Jesus affirmed and celebrated life. His was not the attitude that this world and all that is in it are despicably evil ... that the object is to totally reject life with an eye always on "glory" ... that beauty in any form must be repressed as a tool of the devil. No, instead, Christ affirmed and celebrated life. Not a recluse, he enjoyed friendships with Lazarus, Mary, Martha, and others. He observed simple domestic gestures and was so impressed by them that he gave them a prominent place in his teachings (a woman sweeping a house, or drawing water at a well, baking bread, old wineskins bursting with new wine, lamps flickering in the night, patches on old garments). He enjoyed and absorbed the movements in nature and referred to them in order to illustrate his message; birds gathering into trees, foxes going into dens, figs withering, storm clouds boiling. Jesus affirmed life in such a positive manner, experiencing and relating to God’s great intention and design for all he had made, that we may understand life is not to be either seized nor rejected, but "lived" in an attitude of "Praise God!" In the harmony of Christ’s life with creation, we see something of God’s great intention and design for each of us.
b. In his ministry. Jesus’ ministry was characterized by the absolute "giving" of himself. He was, as one theologian puts it, "radically obedient" to God. In the same spirit, he was "radically giving" to others, always reaching, touching, healing, praying, searching, loving. The Bell Telephone Company did not originate the concept of "Reach Out and Touch Someone." The concept was in the mind of God before creation and the practice is as old as Eden. It was perfected in Jesus Christ, proclaimed in the New Testament, and is as relevant today as this morning’s newspaper. The ministry of Christ reveals a God who "spends" himself for creation.
c. In his teaching. Jesus was able to recognize and relate to God in the common life through his teachings. His life, ministry, and teachings combined to reveal a God of boundless love, caring, concern, and sensitive compassion. What he taught, he practiced. Even in death he was consistent with the witness of his life. Having spoken of "forgiving one’s enemies" and those who "despitefully use you," he gathered his words into action on Calvary. "Father, forgive them," he prayed. He taught so very much more, all of which was personified in his life. He showed that if the "good teacher" is flawlessly consistent, how much more consistent and loving must be our heavenly Father?
d. In his resurrection. Here, God unmistakably reveals himself. His power is beyond imagination. His promises are made good. His intentions and purposes will not be overthrown. His actual involvement in the world is confirmed. In the resurrected Christ, God is clearly revealed. God was, in all ways, in Christ!
6. FOR UNTO YOU
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Imagine with me for a moment what it was like that first Christmas Eve, the night Jesus left heaven to go down to earth. Like any boy leaving home, Jesus left heaven. Perhaps the Father said something like this to him, "Now, Son, I’ve got to send you down to earth because my people have really messed things up. They are unhappy. Many are lonely and down on themselves. I want you to go down to give them new hope and to provide a way for their sins to be forgiven so that we can all get back together again."
So Jesus walked to the door of heaven, but before descending he turned and asked, "Father, what will I tell them?" And the good Heavenly Father put his arms around his Son and said, "When you get down there, all you need to do is tell them that I love them. That is all. Just tell them that I love them."
At Christmas all of us gladly hear these words of love: "For unto you," the angel said, "is born ... a Savior." He is ours, each one of us individually. In Christ the Father says, "I love you, Bill. I love you, Barbara. I love you, Jim, Bob, Peggy, Marge. I sent my Son unto you, Ralph, Betty, Fred." The baby Jesus is the Father’s message of love for each of us individually.
Listen carefully for the Good News God has for each one of you personally. Three simple, powerful, wonderful words, "I love you." Everyone presently having a hard time - remember that you are not alone: God loves you. Everyone feeling lonely or grieving should know that you are not alone, for God loves you. Everyone afraid of tomorrow and what the future might bring, you are not alone, God loves you.
"For unto you is born a Savior." "Unto you," the angel said. Oh, let the meaning of a personal Savior, Jesus, the Babe of Bethlehem, crash in upon your heart and your entire being. There is Good News for you, the Lord of the entire universe loves you personally. For Emmanuel, God with us, is truly with us. Rejoice and give thanks over God’s gift of love to you. Receive him and the peace of God the angels sang about that first Christmas will keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus until life everlasting.
7. Who Is Jesus?
Illustration
John R. Brokhoff
Now, more than ever, we need to face the question, "Who is the real Jesus?" Is the Christ of faith the Jesus of history? What is the truth about Jesus? What can we believe? We turn to the Apostles' Creed which has given the church's answer for 2,000 years.
Different Positions
It is not strange that the most popular question of our time is, "Who is Jesus?" Was this question not answered in Matthew 16:16 when Peter said to Jesus at Caesarea Philippi: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God"? In Jesus' day, too, there were different opinions about Jesus. When on a retreat with his disciples, he asked them what people were saying about him. The public was divided: Jesus was considered to be John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. What more of an answer do we need than the answer of Peter? Jesus accepted his answer as the truth, for he said, "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Yet, after twenty centuries, we do not believe what Peter said about the identity of Jesus. According to a Gallup poll, 42 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: "Jesus is the Son of God." A recent report from Germany indicated that only one out of every four believe in Jesus Christ. Throughout Christian history down to the present, there are different views of Jesus. Now let us look at some of them.
1. The All-Human Jesus
Human
According to this position, Jesus is 100 percent human. It was held as early as the first centuries of Christianity by the Ebionites. They denied that Jesus was divine. He was only a teacher, prophet, miracle-man, and one with an outstanding character. But he was not divine, the Son of God. Today this view is held by many, including atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, Jews, Moslems, and other non-Christian religions.
2. The All-Divine Jesus
Divine
Opposite the Ebionites, Docetists held that Jesus was entirely divine. He was not at all human. This view was originally taught by Eutychus, a monk in a monastery near Constantinople. In the fourth century, Appolonarius, bishop of Laodicea, popularized the teaching. It was known as Docetism, from the Latin word docere meaning "to seem." It just seemed that Jesus was human. It was based on the idea that the physical and material were inherently evil. The human body therefore was sinful. Jesus therefore was not human, for God could not be identified with sin. Docetists held that Jesus' human nature was swallowed up by the divine. This denied the Incarnation, the biblical teaching that "the Word became flesh."
3. The Half And Half Jesus
Human/Divine
Nestorians took the view that Jesus was half human and half divine. It was taught by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, in the fifth century. To this day it is a very popular understanding of Jesus. When we see Jesus hungry, thirsty, and tired, we say it was because he was human. When he struggles in prayer and on the cross cries out, "My God, why ...?" we see the human Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus is God when he walks on water, feeds 5,000, raises the dead, heals lepers, and rises from the grave. The problem with this view is that we have a divided Jesus -- two persons in one body.
4. The Adopted Jesus
Divine
Human
This is known as adoptionism. According to this position, Jesus came into the world as a human. Because of his moral excellence, his perfect obedience to God, his wisdom, his compassion for people, and his willing sacrifice of himself on the cross, the Father adopted him as his son at his baptism. This adoption was confirmed by the resurrection and the ascension. Jesus then became a deified man.
5. The Both And Jesus
Human & Divine
The above different positions concerning Jesus caused great concern, for the gospel was at stake. If Jesus were only human, then he was just a martyr on the cross and not the Lamb that took away the sin of the world. If he were only human, the resurrection was a fairy tale. His promises of forgiveness and eternal life were meaningless. His claims to know God and to be one with God would then be the words of a religious fanatic who was deluded into thinking he was the Son of God.
On the other hand, if Jesus were only divine and not human, humanity would be the loser. Because he was human, he became one of us. As a human, he fulfilled the law for us. Through his humanity we could see the nature of God. Above all, he became sin for us so that sin, through him, could go out of the world. As a human Jesus knows our human condition. Like all of us he was tempted and he showed that by the power of God we can overcome temptation to sin.
Consequently, the church had to take a stand on the question of Jesus. Is he only human, only divine, or half and half? In 451 A.D. the church held a council at Chalcedon to decide the issue. The church decided that it was not a matter of Jesus being fully God or fully human, or half and half, but it was a matter of both, both fully human and fully divine. To this day the church holds to this truth stated at Chalcedon:
We confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, or a rational soul and a body, of one substance with the Father with respect to the Godhead, and of one substance with us in respect of the manhood, like us in everything but sin ...
This is to say that Jesus is fully God and fully man. These two natures are blended into one integrated personality. He is not a split personality, nor does he suffer from schizophrenia. It is like a blender in your kitchen. Suppose you put apples, peaches, and pears in it and pushed the "on" button for a minute. Now what do you have -- apples, peaches, and pears? Yes, you do, but can you tell which is which? They have become one fruit, one substance. Also, it is like hom*ogenized milk. When the raw milk comes from the farm, a dairy runs it through a hom*ogenizer. As the milk runs through the machine, pistons compact the milk so that the cream and skim milk are made one. As a result you cannot take cream off the milk. In the same way, the human and divine natures of Jesus are compacted into one integrated person.
This means that the Father and the Son are one. When Jesus prays, God also prays. When the human Jesus suffers and dies on a cross, God is in Jesus enduring the cross. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). When the human Jesus speaks, it is also God who speaks. When Jesus weeps, God weeps. This truth makes us realize the seriousness of the cross. It was not only a human on the cross, but God was there in Jesus. Good Friday is the day God died in Jesus. Indeed, the murderers did not know what they were doing; they did not know they were killing God! As the spiritual says, "Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble."
8. A Different View
Illustration
Brett Blair
It is entirely possible, and even more probable, that people see you in several different ways. Some may see you as a patient man while others may see you as hot headed. Only you really know the truth. Why do we tend not to not recognize the nature of other people? Perhaps, most of the time, it is a simple case of forgetting. Mary, Jesus' mother, was upset with her son for leaving the caravan and staying behind in Jerusalem. In a moment of anger she lost her head, and said to him, like any mother, "Wait till your father Joseph hears about this! To which Jesus replies, "Didn't you know I would be in MY Father's house."
You know the one about the Lone Ranger and Tonto - his Native American sidekick. They are riding through a Western ravine when suddenly they are ambushed. "Tonto, we're surrounded!" shouts the Lone Ranger. Tonto replies, "What mean WE, white man?"
It is a subtle shift between Mary's "Your father" and Jesus' "My Father." But, when the going gets tough Tonto ain't no white man and when it comes to Jesus' purpose in life, he's no carpenter's son.
9. Trifling with the Trinity
Illustration
Brett Blair
There's a trend on social media to cancel peoples livelihood for even the slightest offenses that the person attacking them doesn't like. It's been billed the "cancel culture."It's an evil behavior often by anonymous sources. But it's not new. More prevalent but not new. And it certainly has been in the church for a long time. Let's use the acrostic CCC: Christian Cancel Culture.
A religious weight loss program called Weigh Down created in 1992 by a woman named Gwen Shamblin grew from a small business conducted out of a home garage to a multimillion-dollar Nashville corporation with over 30,000 churches and organizations participating. But last year the whole movement was threatened and her business placed in jeopardy when Shamblin, on August 10th made comments regarding her beliefs in the Trinity. Here is what she said, "As a ministry, we believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible does not use the word "trinity," and our feeling is that the word "trinity" implies equality in leadership, or shared Lordship. It is clear that the scriptures teach that Jesus is the Son of God and that God sends the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not send God anywhere. God is clearly the Head."
Her comments sent shockwaves through her community of followers and business partners. She was removed from the Women of Faith Web site, influential evangelical churches dropped her program, even some key employees left. Thomas Nelson, her publisher, quickly canceled the publication of her book that was then scheduled for release in one month. All of this because she trifled with the Trinity.
If you are confused as to why her words got her into so much trouble, that is quite understandable. The church has struggled to explain how God can be both One God and three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Where Mrs. Shamblin went wrong was in her statement that God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit were not equal in leadership. In an interview, she agreed that Jesus was both Lord and God but she maintained that Jesus held only a secondary and unequal relationship to the Father.
If you are still confused, let me ask you this: What is the conclusion of such a statement? It is this: Jesus is not fully God. This cuts at the heart of the church's historic teaching that Jesus Christ, in his very nature, was both fully God and fully man. It's a mystery which we accept through faith. Yet Shamblin tries to argue her point by saying that Christians grieve Jesus if they adhere to doctrines not found in Scripture. She says, "If God wanted us to refer to Himself, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as the 'trinity,' He would not have left this word completely out of the Bible."
We must tread carefully when these kinds of claims are made. Just because a word is not in the bible doesn't mean that it is unbiblical. There are a lot of words that we use in the church that are not found in the Bible. In fact, the word Bible is not in the Bible.
Now we find ourselves this morning, on Trinity Sunday, struggling with this ancient doctrine. What are the essentials of our faith and why is the Trinity one of them? And how can we safeguard our pursuit of truth?
10. The Trinity - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
A preacher proudly boasted that he does not preach doctrinal sermons. They are boring he asserts and people do not understand or relate to them. Further, he claimed, I am a preacher and not a theologian. I get down do the practical issues and simply preach Christ crucified.
His thinking is faulty at several points. First, he is wrong when he says that he is not a theologian. The fact is that everyone to a certain extent is a theologian. Theology is nothing more than what you think about God. Well, shouts one person, I don't believe In God. That then is your theology. I would also take issue with him when he claims that he does not preach theology but gets down to practical issues. In my thinking there is no difference in good theology and good practice. Good, solid theology gets down to the very core of our existence.
Finally, I would disagree with him when he says that we should only preach Christ crucified. I know that is what the Apostle Paul said but this preacher doesn't mean what Paul meant. He is saying that he only preaches about the cross and saving the sinner. I submit to you that the cross is not central in Paul's theology; rather, it is Christ. It has always puzzled me why some ministers preach the message of salvation to people who have been sitting in the pews all their life when they need so much more of Christ's teaching on life's other issues. There are many strings on a guitar. To make beautiful music all of them must be played and not just one. That is why in the United Methodist Church we honor the lectionary and the seasons of the church year. That insures a witness to the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ. How can one go through the season of Advent and not touch upon the doctrine of the incarnation. How can one go through Lent without touching upon the doctrine of the resurrection? Likewise, how can we embark upon the season of Pentecost, as we did last week, without mentioning the doctrine of the Trinity?
Today is Trinity Sunday. This is a day that has been celebrated in the Christian church since the 10th century. It is on this occasion that ministers around the world address themselves to the subject of the triune God.
Let me begin by saying that the doctrine of the Trinity does not attempt to explain God. It only explains to us in a very elemental way what God has revealed to us about himself so far. To describe the tip of the iceberg above the water is not to describe the entire iceberg. So we Christians affirm the Trinity, not as an explanation of God, but simply as a way of describing what we know about Him.
The idea of the Trinity is not emphatically stated as a doctrine in the scriptures. Yet, by implication, it is stated many times. The early Christians soon discovered that they simply could not speak of God without speaking of the three ways in which he had revealed himself to them. This does not mean that there are three separate Gods. It means that there is one God who has shown himself in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Let's look at these this morning:
1. First, we affirm God the Father.
2. Secondly, we affirm belief in the Son, Jesus Christ.
3. Finally, we affirm belief in the Holy Spirit.
11. I Am Sayings
Illustration
Brett Blair
There are seven "I Am" sayings in the gospel of John. I Am the true vine is the last of these sayings.
- I am the bread of life - 6:35
- I am the light of the world - 8:12 & 9:5
- I am the gate for the sheep - 10:7,9
- I am the good shepherd - 10:11,14
- I am the resurrection and the life - 11:25
- I am the way and the truth and the life - 14:6
- I am the true vine - 15:1,5
12. The Beauty Of Holiness
Illustration
Clement E. Lewis
The 96th Psalm is closely comparable with 1 Chronicles 16:23-26. Psalm 29:2 also contains the words, "Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness." The New Revised Standard Version translated Psalm 96:9 to read, "Worship the Lord in holy splendor; tremble before him all the earth." Older people have long been accustomed to using the words from the King James Version.
Worship ought to be made beautiful in sight, sound, and thought. The physical settings of worship experiences serve to enhance and reinforce the yearning for understanding and completeness. This may be illustrated by a question: "Would you rather have a picnic on a graveled area in the heat of the sun, or where there is verdure of grass, and the shade of trees?" Worship is best when the scene is not barren, but blessed with good architecture, beauty of color, protection from the elements, and in the presence of an altar, giving it sacred significance.
We need to remember that truth is not only conveyed by words. It is also shared in feelings, situational inclusion, comfortable meditation and contemplation, which nurtures us. But worship can also take place in foxholes of distress, danger, and despair. God's messages and our responses do not always come in pretty packages with liturgical decorations. Sometimes they come in moments of destitution, hunger, inner distress, pain, and loneliness. What we make of what we learn at such times turns the place of discovery into a temple, and we worship in the beauty of holiness because we have found a relationship that truly enriches life.
Worship may take place in prison, a hospital or a nursing home; in a cemetery, a forest, or in a barren desert. It was in a desert setting that Jesus dealt with his temptations and life determinations, as he recalled Deuteronomy 6:13, and declared, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve." To the woman at the well in Samaria, Jesus said, "Believe me the hour is coming when on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. ... But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is a spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." (See John 4:19-24)
All of us yearn for the experience of "worship in the beauty of holiness." The psychiatrist, Von Frankl, held that the urge to worship is instinctive in children in much the same way as the urge to nurse. He suggested that the ages of four and five are the times when children are most desirous and accepting for the experiences of worship. Esthetics and quality appreciation are important to the development and life of the child. The elderly demonstrate much of the same needs in their lives.
"The beauty of holiness" is a most suggestive and satisfying phrase. It conveys the idea of "Holy Presence," and of being involved in spiritual goodness. My how human hearts long for that! In the midst of crassness, competitiveness, controversies, hostility, and uncertainty of conditions, we need that respite desperately.
Symbolism, the historic sign of faith, serves to renew our sense of oneness with what has been generative before us, and proclaims that we too can be involved in the experience of personal inclusion.
The building we refer to as the church or the chapel ought to be as adequate, as comfortable, and as attractive as we want our homes to be. Shouldn't God's house be the most attractive and architecturally satisfying of all? Nostalgia is important to many of us, and plays a tremendous role in our religious and personal life. It is the incentive that leads us to memorialize -- to provide new and beautiful things that relate to worship. Yet, we know that nostalgic sentiment can become a barrier to doing what is most important for the future. We can become so attached to what we have, and give our loyalty to what is familiar, that we may neglect to see what we ought to develop.
"The beauty of holiness" should inspire us for the transformation of life. It should also challenge us to greater things, with God's encouragement and guidance. Contemplating "the beauty of holiness" is not enough! We must also ask, "And what else ought we to do, God?" The answer we receive may not be the one we might prefer, but we had better not pray, "Thy will be done," unless we are willing to be a part of that will. God calls us to the faithful application of our Christian belief and commitment to discipleship, in which is included "the beauty of holiness." Therein lies the great truth of the words with which we began this worship time:
"O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness;
Serve him with gladness all the earth." Amen.
The Benediction: Send us forth, O God, causing us to remember that the beauty of holiness needs to show in our lives, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
13. The Apostles' Creed
Illustration
Staff
The earliest known mention of the expression "Apostles' Creed" occurs in a letter of AD 390 from a synod in Milan. The most traditional version of the creed is as follows:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places
The Old RomanSymbol (Latin: vetus symbolum romanum), or Old Roman Creed, is an earlier and shorter version of the Apostles’ Creed. It was based on the 2nd-century Rule of Faith and the interrogatory declaration of faith for those receiving Baptism.It is said that this earlier and first adopted version wasbased on the Trinitarian formula found in The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19. It was widely accepted in the 4th century, that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, each of the Twelve Apostles contributed an article to the twelve articles of thiscreed:
I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
(the life everlasting)
The Apostles' Creed (100 A.D.) is the oldest and shortest creed with only 109 words in the traditional version. Only the New Testament creed, "Jesus is Lord," is older. It is also the most often used -- practically every Sunday, except for festivals and seasons when the Nicene Creed is confessed. Undoubtedly, it is the most universal statement of the Christian faith.
By 100 A.D. the Apostles' Creed became the basic statement of faith for the church. In the first century, it was the rule of faith for baptismal candidates. In 390 it became known as the Apostles' Creed, even though it was not written by the apostles but contained the beliefs of the apostles. An ancient legend has it that after Pentecost the apostles agreed on a summary of what they were going to preach. The summary was the Apostles' Creed. Yet, the creed did not reach its final form until the sixth or seventh century. Martin Luther held this creed in such high regard that he used it in his Small Catechism to teach families what a Christian believes. To this day the Small Catechism is used as the basis for youth and adult preparation for church membership in Lutheran churches.
14. Fixing The Piano
Illustration
King Duncan
Once there was a small jazz club in New Orleans. In a corner of that club sat an old dilapidated piano. All of the jazz artists complained about this antiquated instrument. The piano players dreaded playing on it. The vocalists dreaded singing with it. And all of the combos that played the club wished that they could bring in their own piano - just like they could a saxophone or a trumpet.
Finally, after years of listening to these jazz musicians complain about his piano, the owner of the club decided to do something about it. He had the piano painted.
Father Henri Nouwen, reflecting on the story of Nicodemas, writes, "I love Jesus but want to hold on to my own friends even when they do not lead me closer to Jesus. I love Jesus but want to hold on to my own independence even when that independence brings me no real freedom. I love Jesus but do not want to lose the respect of my professional colleagues, even though I know that their respect does not make me grow spiritually. I love Jesus but do not want to give up my writing plans, travel plans, and speaking plans, even when these plans are often more to my glory that to the glory of God."
Upon reflection Father Nouwen realizes that he isn't all that different from Nicodemus. He writes, "So I am like Nicodemus, who came by night, and said safe things about Jesus to his colleagues." Even a great Christian like Father Henri Nouwen is sometimes content to paint the old piano.
There's an element of Nicodemus in all of us. It's always easier to play it safe and keep Jesus off in the distance than to call him the Lord of our life. We need to know, however, that we cannot always put him off.
15. The Nicene Creed
Illustration
Staff
The Nicene Creed is a statement of belief widely used in Christian liturgy. It is called Nicene because it was originally adopted in the city of Nicaea (present dayİznik, Turkey)by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.
The Nicene Creed(325-381 A.D.) provides a fuller explanation of the Christian faith. It is called Nicene because a general council of the church, similar to Vatican II held in the 1960s, met in the city of Nicaea in Asia Minor. The Council was called to deal with the heresy of Arianism, which was a denial of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed goes into more detail than the Apostles' Creed on the Trinity and the person of Jesus.
A final version of the creed was formulated by another Council which met in Constantinople in 381 A.D. The creed is and has been from the start a topic of contention. In 598 a provincial church council meeting in Toledo, Spain, added the "filioque clause" which says that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father "and the Son." This added clause was accepted by the Western but not the Eastern church. It became one of the causes of the schism between East and West in 1064 A.D. Today the clause is still proving to be a stumbling block to closer relations with the Eastern Orthodox church. The Nicene Creed is familiar to most churchgoers in liturgical churches, because it is used in the worship service on festivals and certain seasons such as Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter.
16. Let My Little Light Shine - Sermon Starter
Illustration
King Duncan
There are all kinds of theories about how to motivate people.
Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Don Sutton hadn't won a game in eight weeks. A critical press was suggesting that he be dropped from the starting lineup. The future looked bleak, and Sutton felt terrible. Then, before a game, Dodgers manager Walter Alston tapped him on the shoulder. "I'd like to speak with you, Don," he said. Sutton prepared himself for the worst.
"Don," said Alston, "I know how the past couple of months have been for you. Everyone's wondering whether we can make it to the play-offs . . . You know there's a lot of pressure . . . I've had to make a decision." Sutton had visions of being taken off the mound. Then Alston continued. "If the Dodgers are going to win this year," he said, looking Sutton in the eye, "they're going to win with Don Sutton pitching. Come what may, you're staying in the starting job. That's all I wanted to say."
Sutton's losing streak lasted two more weeks, but because of his manager's encouragement he felt different about it. Something in him was turning around. He found himself pitching the best ball of his career. In the National League pennant drive, he won 13 games out of 14.
There are all kinds of theories about how to motivate people. We can do it through guilt, through fear, through shame. But these were not Jesus' methods. Jesus motivated through positive messages of hope and encouragement.
Consider our lesson for today. Jesus says to his followers, "You are the light of the world. . . ." Can you imagine that? Here was a motley crew of farmers and fishermen and tax collectors and housewives in a tiny and remote village in an obscure part of the world and Jesus was saying to them, "You are the light of the world." Talk about a statement of faith! Let's go farther than that. Talk about a crazy idea! Light of the world? That bunch? It must have sounded absurd at the time even to them. Only Jesus could have seen that through this motley crew God would indeed change the world forever. At the time, however, it probably sounded like so much idle chatter. "You are the light of the world," he said and so they were. Now do you want to hear something really absurd? So are we.
Jesus says to us this morning that WE are the light of the world. Think about that for a moment. Sink your teeth into it savor it. You and I are the light of the world. What does it mean? Well, let me suggest some possibilities.
- We Have a Responsibility for the World.
- We Have Something the World Desperately Needs.
- We Are Not the Source of Our Light, but We Reflect a Much Greater Light.
17. THE SCANDALOUS GOSPEL
Illustration
John H. Krahn
There is much in the Bible I don’t like. I don’t like the commandments that I have particular difficulty keeping. I am uncomfortable with those stories in which God harshly disciplines his wayward people, especially when I am feeling wayward. I am not particularly pleased with God’s demands that I worship him every Sunday, especially when I am on vacation in a strange community not knowing the location of the nearest church. I would not like to think that tithing is the generosity encouraged by Scripture and would rather only throw a five dollar or a ten dollar bill in the collection plate each week and spend the rest on myself.
Likewise I am uncomfortable when Jesus tells me in Matthew 10:34-39 that truth is more important than temporary harmony in the family or in the church. He says, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; ... I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." He continues, "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." Whether or not this passage is to be taken literally is not the question. Rather, it states that following Christ means standing up for what is right, being principled rather than practical, serving the truth rather than the expedient even when it produces disharmony in the community, in the church, and within our family.
Biblical Christianity, as opposed to many popular notions of Christianity, is a venture for the strong and mature. It is forever impatient with the old, stubborn, bloodstained ways of the world. When we are in touch with God’s Word and the demands it produces in our lives, conflict and pain often enter as we speak out against injustice. It is true that the gospel of God’s love through Jesus Christ brings peace to troubled lives, but Jesus warns us that it is not to be peace by compromise or evasion.
Many of us enjoy wearing a finely fashioned silver or gold cross around our necks. Jesus says that, "He who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Jesus calls us to bear a cross, not simply wear one. Our life needs to be one of involvement, one that sometimes produces tension for the sake of Christ.
We read Scripture and discover a Christ who conducted a ministry that produced much conflict. Jesus of Nazareth would have been excluded from most Call lists of churches who are seeking pastors. He would have been termed a trouble-maker, a boat-rocker. We celebrate our heritage as Christians when we stand up against the forces of darkness that compromise the Word of God, dehumanize people, and encourage us to do the smart thing rather than the right thing.
Jesus was a lousy politician and they crucified him. God does not call any one of us to be popular, but he calls all of us to be righteous. Our lives might well be the most scandalous when they are the most faithful.
18. The Order of Events of Crucifixion
Illustration
Merrill F. Unger
Order of the Events of the Crucifixion:
- Arrival at Golgotha (Calvary) -Mt 27:33; Mk 15:22; Lk 23:33; Jn 19:17
- Offer of a benumbing drink -Mt 27:34
- The crucifixion -Mt 27:35
- Cry, 'Father, forgive them...' -Lk 23:34
- The parting of Christ's garments -Mt 27:35
- Jesus mocked - Mt 27:39-44; Mk 15:29
- The thieves rail on Him, but one believes -Mt 27:44
- Second cry, "Today you will be with me...' -Lk 23:43
- Third cry, 'Dear woman, here is your son' - Jn 19:26-27
- The darkness -Mt 27:45; Mk 15:33
- The fourth cry, 'My God, my God...' -Mt 27:46-47; Mk 15:34-36
- Fifth cry, 'I am thirsty' - Jn 19:28
- Sixth cry, 'It is finished' - Jn 19:30
- Seventh cry, 'Father, into thy hands...' - Lk 23:46
- Jesus dismisses His spirit -Mt 27:50; Mk 15:37
19. The Healing of Jairus' Daughter and the Hemorrhaging Woman - Sermon Opener
Illustration
James W. Moore
A business executive became depressed. Things were not going well at work, and he was bringing his problems home with him every night. Every evening he would eat his dinner in silence, shutting out his wife and five-year-old daughter. Then he would go into the den and read the paper using the newspaper to wall his family out of his life.
After several nights of this, one evening his daughter took her little hand and pushed the newspaper down. She then jumped into her father's lap, wrapped her arms around his neck and hugged him strongly. The father said abruptly, "Honey, you are hugging me to death!" "No, Daddy," the little girl said, "I'm hugging you to life!"
This was the greatness of Jesus. He took people where they were and hugged them to life. That is precisely what we see Jesus doing here in this dramatic passage in Mark 5. He is loving needy and hurting people, hugging them to life. This passage is a fascinating one because here we have a story within a story, or two healing stories rolled into one and the people involved could not be more different.
On the one hand, the family of Jairus represented the "upper crust" of society. Jairus was the ruler of the synagogue. He was a man of substance, rich and powerful and religiously prominent. In the synagogue, he called the shots. He decided who would preach, what scripture would be read, and what hymns would be sung. He represented the Elite of Society, especially the religious world, but this day Jairus was troubled. His 12-year-old daughter was dying.
On the other hand, the hemorrhaging woman in the crowd was a social outcast. She was considered unclean as one who was under the judgment of God and therefore not allowed to set foot in the synagogue. In this magnificent passage, these two vastly different people, the down and out hemorrhaging woman and the upper-crust daughter of Jairus, are loved into life by our Lord.
Now, of course, there are many beautiful lessons here in Mark 5 in these two dramatic stories of healing, and we could go off now in any number of directions. But for the moment, let's look closely together at the power of love and the amazing, incredible things love can accomplish when it is given and when it is received.
1. Love Has the Power to Heal.
2. Love Has the Power to Reconcile.
3. Love Has the Power to Redeem.
20. Building Barns, Postponing Life - Sermon Opener
Illustration
The background for our story this morning is an incident that occurred in Galilee as Jesus was teaching to a large crowd. A young man called out from the crowd and said: "Rabbi, tell my brother to divide the inheritance of our father.” Now, Jewish law clearly prescribed that at the death of a father, the elder son received 2/3 of the inheritance, and the young son received 1/3. This is obviously a younger son who is complaining about the inherent unfairness of it all. Nothing will divide brothers and sisters more than dividing up an estate. So it was then, and so it is now. Jesus refused to get involved in a petty family squabble.
Jesus was concerned, however, with the larger implications of preoccupation with the things of this world. He said: Beware of greed, for life does not consist of things possessed. The sum total of a person’s life is more than their financial portfolio.
He then illustrated this point by telling a story. There was once a man who had an unbroken run of prosperity. In today’s language, he had successfully played the commodities market. So prosperous did he become that his barns could not hold all of his crops. His solution was to tear down these barns and build bigger and better barns. Then, with his financial security in hand, he could sit back and truly enjoy life. His philosophy was: eat, drink, and be merry.
Truth be told, when we hear this story we find ourselves rather envious of this man. A financially successful man—we see him as savvy and wise. Yet, Jesus concluded the story by saying that this man was a fool.
The issue before us this morning is then: what did this man do wrong? To answer that question we must understand that this is not a parable about money. It is a parable about values and what is important in life. With that in mind, let me suggest four things that this man did that made him a fool.
I. First, he was a fool because he had full barns, but an empty heart.
II. Secondly, this man was a fool because he overestimated his own value in the scheme of things.
III. Third, this man was a fool because he forgot what his real business in life was really all about.
IV. Fourth, this man was a fool because he forgot about the nature of time.
21. The Good Shepherd - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
It is small wonder that the image of the shepherd was frequently upon the lips of the savior. It was a part of his heritage and culture. Abraham, the father of the nation, was the keeper of great flocks. Moses was tending the flocks of his father-in-law, Jethro, when God called him into a special service. David was a shepherd boy called in from the fields to be the King of Israel.
The imagery of the shepherd was also imprinted upon the literature of the day. The 23rd Psalm is frequently referred to as the shepherd psalm. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures. He leadeth me beside still waters."
When Isaiah spoke of the coming of the Messiah he worded it by saying: "He will feed his flock like a shepherd! He will gather his lambs into his arms." Yes, the tradition of the shepherd was very much a part of the heritage of Christ.
This picture comes more clearly into focus in the New Testament. Jesus once told a story about a shepherd who had 100 sheep, but one of them went astray. In our way of thinking a 99% return on our investment would be most desirable, but not this shepherd. He left the 99 to go in search of that one lost sheep. Later, when Jesus was speaking to a great throng of people, Mark tells us that he had compassion upon them because they were "as sheep without a shepherd."
Throughout the Judeo-Christian faith, then, the image of the shepherd has been stamped upon our thinking. In our scripture text for this morning Jesus again taps into this imagery when he refers to himself as the good shepherd. For a few moments this morning, I would like for us to examine together what he had in mind when he described himself as the Good Shepherd.
1. First, we have a shepherd that is a genuine shepherd.
2. Second, I think that the Good Shepherd knows his sheep.
3. Third, the Good Shepherd also includes other sheep.
4. Fourth, the shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.
22. Selfish and Altruistic at the Same Time
Illustration
Mary Hinkle Shore
E. M. Forster says, "When human beings love they try to get something. They also try to give something, and this double aim makes love more complicated than food or sleep. It is selfish and altruistic at the same time, and no amount of specialization in one direction quite atrophies the other" (Aspects of the Novel [Orlando: Harcourt, 1927] 50).
On the verge of his departure from them, Jesus says to his loved ones, "If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28b). This is so hard! How can the disciples rejoice that Jesus is leaving? What makes possible that kind of atrophied selfishness and robust altruism?
23. What Pleases God?
Illustration
Staff
The very concept of God having pleasure--the mighty Maker of the Universe being pleased, like a child, at things that take place on Earth--staggers the imagination. Most amazing of all is the revelation that it pleased Him to put His own Son through a terrible, bruising death, as the tremendous Messianic prophecy of our text reveals. Nevertheless, this was the only possible way whereby "the pleasure of the LORD" could be accomplished in the redeemed lives of lost men and women, whom He had created for eternal fellowship with the Triune god. "For the LORD taketh pleasure in His people. (Psalm 149:4).
Five times we read in the New Testament that God the Father spoke from heaven assuring us that He was "well pleased" with His "beloved Son" (Matthew 3:17, 17:5: Mark l:ll; Luke 3:22; II Peter l:17). Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him. Had it not been so, none of us could ever have been saved, but the Lord Jesus Himself has confirmed to His own "little flock" that "it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Luke 12:32).
Thus, not only have we been created "for Thy pleasure" (Revelation 4:11), but also we have been predestinated "unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will" (Ephesians l:5). This is far beyond our comprehension, so we merely rest in the great truth that "it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). We know that "the LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in His mercy" (Psalm 147:11).
24. TRY A TRUST WALK
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Several years ago while conducting a Senior Youth Retreat, I led the group in an activity called a "Trust Walk." Participants paired up and each took a turn leading the other blindfolded throughout the retreat facility. I also had a partner and took my turn. For approximately twenty minutes I was led by the hand around tables and chairs, up and down steps, throughout the building. Something remarkable happened to me when I trusted my life, so to speak, into the hands of my young partner. In those short twenty minutes, a beautiful feeling developed toward that person, a closeness, a need for her. Even when the blindfold came off, I felt that I wanted to get better acquainted. I continued to feel positive feelings for my partner.
Throughout the Book of Psalms God encourages us to take a trust walk with him. Jesus says to all of us, "Trust in me. I love you so much. I want to help you. Wherever you are hurting, let me bring healing. Some of you are not sure and continue to believe that you must handle your own problems! In some cases you may have some success, but there is a better way. Doing it your way is not the better way. And don’t be afraid of leaning. Lean on me," Jesus says. "There is no concern too insignificant for my attention. And when you pray, remember that my Father is there listening. Pray boldly, yes, asking the Father to meet your needs. Also pray trusting that his wisdom surpasses yours. He’s not going to lead you into any walls or crashing down any steps."
When Sir Walter Raleigh, the famed explorer, was on the scaffold awaiting imminent death, he is said to have had a short talk with the axeman. The executioner told his prisoner that the block would be more comfortable if he turned his head the other way. "My friend," said Sir Walter Raleigh, "it matters little how the head lies so long as the heart is right." To accept the Lord Jesus as our personal Savior and to trust in him puts the heart right once and for all, for time and eternity. Problems, even imminent death, are handled more gracefully when we walk through life trusting in the Lord.
If you are not currently on a trust walk with the Lord, let me suggest that you begin one right now. Your partner is ready and waiting - his hand is reaching out for yours. There’s but one simple thing to do ... take it.
25. Learning God's Language
Illustration
Staff
God has many ways of speaking to his people. To Saul of Tarsus he spoke through a bright and shining light, to Job out of a whirlwind, to Moses from a burning bush. To Elijah he spoke in a still small voice, and to Jacob he spoke in a dream. To you and me he speaks in various ways. Some may have heard him speak in sunrises or sunsets, in bright stars on a summer night, in towering mountains or surging seas. Some may have heard him speak in the caress of caring friends, or in upswelling notes of song. Some may have heard him speak from the pages of the Bible, or in the holy hush of the sanctuary or the quiet time of prayer.
When God speaks he is always saying something, and it is of supreme importance that we understand what it is that he is saying. Our Bible book of Hebrews begins this way: "God, who at various times and in many ways spoke in time past to our fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son ..." Here is his supreme utterance: in Christ the heavenly Father gives us the ultimate expression of himself - his most wonderful and mighty word comes to us in the "Word-made-flesh." His own beloved Son is the language by which God speaks to us his most self-revealing word.
What is it our heavenly Father is saying to us in Christ? If we are to know this, we must know the language by which he speaks: we must know Christ. An old song says, "More about Jesus I would know ..." This, I am sure, is one of the great reasons for the high place the assembly of Christ's people has always had in Christian life and experience: a better perception of him. This, I would hope, is one of our main reasons for being together here this morning. "More about Jesus let me learn, more of his holy will discern." May this be our prayer today.
26. A Parental Judgment
Illustration
Michael P. Green
Neglect is one of the most devastating ways a parent can abuse a child. O. Henry, in one of his short stories, tells of a little girl whose mother had died. When the father would come home from work, he would fix their meal, then he would sit down with his paper and pipe, put his feet up on the hassock, and read. The little girl would come in and say, “Father, would you play with me?” And he would say, “No, I’m too tired, I’m too busy. Go out in the street and play.” This went on for so long that finally the little girl grew up on the streets and became what we would call a streetwalker, a prostitute. Eventually she died, and when, in the story, her soul appeared at the gates of heaven, St. Peter said to Jesus, “Here’s this prostitute. Shall we send her to hell?” Jesus said, “No, no; let her in. But go find the man who refused to play with his little girl, and send him to hell.”
27. Sermon Opener - A Strange New Math
Illustration
Glenn E. Ludwig
We have a wonderful mystery to contemplate this morning, and it is summarized in a strange formula. It's not really all that complicated, but it is worthy of reflection for it has implications for our lives together. Here is the formula, an equation, really: 1 + 1 + 1 = One.
Rather strange math, isn't it? Well, it's God's math, so let's see how it works.
That strange formula really comes from the gospel text for today. For the past several weeks during this Easter season, our gospel readings have come from that section of John's gospel known as the Final Discourse of Jesus.
This last speech, if you will, that Jesus makes to his disciples concludes with these verses from the 17th chapter. It is really a prayer of Jesus to his Father in heaven and has often been called the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus. In a sense, it is Jesus' last will and testament, his parting shot, his last effort to teach, to exhort, to encourage, to empower his disciples.
Now for the math part. Listen to Jesus' words: "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." Did you hear it? 1 + 1 + 1 = One. It's not too difficult, once we understand the parts of the equation. Let's unravel the mystery slowly.
28. The Pauline Salutation
Illustration
At least a dozen of the twenty-seven New Testament books of our Bible were written by one man, the Apostle Paul. These books are in the form of letters written to his fellow-Christians, giving them instruction and encouragement. There is one sentence which appears in everything Paul wrote, in each of his epistles. It is this: "Grace be to you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ."
Paul always used this salutation in greeting the people he loved and cared about. And it is altogether appropriate for us as we meet and greet one another. I suppose each of us has some wish for the well-being of all the others, and of all the wishes we may wish for one another, perhaps none is more fitting than this one - the wish for the grace and peace of God.
So today I would borrow that warm and personal word of the Apostle, and by means of it greet you and welcome you to the experience we share in this hour: "Grace be to you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ." Nothing can better express what we hope will result from our worship here - that in each heart there will be peace and, for the needs of each of our lives, the grace of God.
29. The Meaning of Life - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
In Act 5 scene 5 of Shakespeare's Macbeth, the character Macbeth has heard that the queen is dead and he knows his own death is imminent. At this time he delivers his famous soliloquy:
Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow
creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, Out, brief candle
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
Is Macbeth right? Is life nothing but a shadow having no substance, no meaning? Writers and philosophers since recorded time have tried to answer the question. I don't think any of them have been successful in answering the question to everyone's satisfaction. Some one once said that "Trying to speak about the ultimate reality is like sending a kiss through a messenger." I understand their point: Something of its truth is lost in the translation.
What is the meaning of life? A philosophical question to be sure but this is not only the philosopher's question. It is a genuinely human question and therefore a question that we all ask. It might be a question that is asked in despair or hope, out of cynicism, or out of sincere curiosity and a deep desire to have goals and guidance in life. However we raise the question about the meaning of life, it is our most basic and fundamental question.
And so it comes as no surprise that Jesus deals with this question and answers it. Surprisingly, the answer is not given in the context of an argument with the Jewish leaders or in a discussion with his disciples, and it is not given in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus deals with so many fundamental issues. It is telling that Jesus deals with the meaning of life in the context of prayer.
In the context of what has been called, by many scholars, Jesus' High Priestly Prayer. [Pause] The Disciples are in the upper room, now. They have just finished the Passover meal and Jesus is thinking about his crucifixion which will occur within the next 24 hours. He knows he is about to leave his disciples alone in the world and he goes before God as a priest would, to intercede for them, to pray for them.
Listen again to his prayer. I am lifting out a few key verses: "While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe, but I will remain in the world no longer…Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life…and this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." It is in this third verse that Jesus delivers the meaning of eternal life and in essence the meaning of life itself. He says, "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
In essence, Jesus says, "the meaning of life is this: that you have a relationship with God, and me his Son, Jesus Christ." And that's the long and short of it! But, Jesus himself, understood just how difficult it was going to be not only for his disciples but for all of us to come to this very simple realization in life and so he prays for two key things. First, in order that we might understand the meaning of life…
1. He Prays for Our Protection from the World.
2. He Prays That We Might Know God.
30. Losing Sight of Life's Goals
Illustration
Brett Blair
In Steven Covey's best seller "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People," he talks about losingsite of our main goals in life. In no other place are the consequences more destructive than in our families: Covey writes:
"I value my children. I love them, I want to help them.I value my role as their father. But I don't always see those values. I get caught up in the "thick of thin things." What matters most gets buried under layers of pressing problems, immediate concerns, and outward behaviors. I become reactive. And the way I interact with my children every day often bears little resemblance to the way I deeply feel about them."
For us Fathers...to truly be known by our children would be wonderful. I suspect that this is so much more difficult for men than women. And yet here in Jesus' prayer it is his first thought, that we might know the Father and the Son. This, he says, is salvation. You want to know what being saved means, what the meaning of life is? It is written here in Jesus prayer: If you will come to know God, the only true God, and the Son whom he has sent, you will be saved.
You might say this is difficult for me to do--to know God. Yes it is. It is difficult for you to do. But it is not difficult for God to make himself known to you.
31. THE CROSS
Illustration
John H. Krahn
The cross best proclaims the indisputable fact that we worship a caring God. It is the most popular of all Christian symbols. There is no Christianity without the cross.
The cross shouts God’s words of love to each of us. It is his proclamation of possibility beyond the present. In it is hope for the hopeless, love for the loveless, encouragement for the depressed, and the pronouncement of life beyond death for those who grieve the loss of a friend or contemplate their own demise. Its importance to our faith cannot be over-emphasized, its proclamation must never be subdued. It trumpets, "God cares!" That’s music to our ears - the best news we could ever hear.
As I look at the cross, I cannot help but think of a movie I saw years ago. Few movies in my life have had the impact of Ben Hur. Many scenes made an indelible impression - the great sea battle, the exciting chariot race, the repugnant leprosy colony. Yet, none hit harder than the crucifixion of our Lord. The sound of hammer on nail rings through the air, the cross rises until it suddenly thumps into place. Slowly Jesus’ blood begins to flow - one drop, then another ... a puddle forms beneath the cross. It begins to rain. Water mixes with more blood, and together they begin to trickle down the hillside. The trickle becomes a stream as the blood washes over God’s creation. We are reminded that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
At Calvary God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. The blood of Christ pouring down the cross restored our relationship with the Father. We cannot fully understand the mystery of God’s plan to recapture a creation gone astray. We only know that all who come to the cross in simple, trusting faith are cleansed by his blood and find peace with the Father.
By his death Jesus has unchained us. Unchained - there is no better word for it. He has set us free from the wages of our sins that only pay dividends in hell and has set us on the positive pathway of a life with God. Our eyes need no longer be downcast; our head has no reason to be between our knees. We are no longer oppressed with our weighty sins, for we have been touched by none other than God. He has cared not just a little but powerfully. His power encountered our sin, and it was no more. His incredible desire to rescue us in spite of everything dispels even the worst sin. But we must be wise enough to permit ourselves and our sins to be encountered by that desire.
32. In the Fires of Life
Illustration
Jon L. Joyce
Back in 1917 during the Russian Revolution, a Russian Orthodox priest and eleven of his parishioners were placed in a prison by the Bolsheviks. They were left there to rot. From time to time, as the weeks went by, the guard of the prisoners would tell his superior: "There is someone else in that cell besides those twelve men. There is someone getting to them who helps them and provides them with what they need. I don’t know how this is possible. All I know there has to be someone with them." Finally, the superior of the prison impatiently went to the cell with the guard. They opened the cell door and herded the twelve prisoners out into the corridor. The superior counted them off one by one. He said to the guard: "Now, you see, there are only twelve." But the old priest spoke up: "But you have forgotten to count the thirteenth who has always been with us. You have forgotten to count Jesus Christ."
Again and again, in the fires of life, we have seen people standing unharmed and unafraid, because the Lord is with them. Emily Bronte, the author of Wuthering Heights, lived and wrote in a rectory on a bleak, gray moor in Yorkshire. She spent her days with a half demented father, two sisters who were dying of tuberculosis, and a brother who regularly came home howling drunk from the village tavern. Yet she could write:
No coward’s soul is mine,
No trembler in the world’s storm-troubled sphere,
I see heaven’s glory shine,
Faith shines equal, arming me from fear.
Jesus walks our lonesome road. He knew heartaches and tears. He knew rejection and ostracism. He knew the loneliness that comes from standing alone for a great cause. He knew defeat and fatigue. He understood life as we face it. He knew the answers. He found that he had company on the lonesome road. He found the Father with him. He spoke those comforting words from which every lonely person can take heart: "I am not alone, because the Father is with me." I love that scene in Green Pastures when the children of Israel have gone on ahead into the Promised Land, and they have left Moses behind on Mount Pisgah on the other side of Jordan. What a pitifully lonely figure he is, as he watches them go, and what a terrible lonesomeness descends upon him. Then he hears a movement behind him, and he feels a hand on his shoulder. He asks: "Is you with me, Lord?" The voice that comes back warms his soul: "Cou’se I is, Moses, cou’se I is."
33. The Iniquity of us All
Illustration
James Packer
Why did the Father will the death of his only beloved Son, and in so painful and shameful a form? Because the Father had "laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6). Jesus' death was vicarious (undergone in our place) and atoning (securing remission of sins for us and reconciliation to God). It was a sacrificial death, fulfilling the principle of atonement taught in connection with the Old Testament sacrifices: "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb. 9:22; Lev. 17:11).
As the "last Adam," the second man in history to act on mankind's behalf, Jesus died a representative death. As a sacrificial victim who put away our sins by undergoing the death penalty that was our due, Jesus died as our substitute. By removing God's wrath against us for sin, his death was an act of propitiation (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2,; 4:10 "expiation," signifying that which puts away sin, is only half the meaning). By saving us from slavery to ungodliness and divine retribution for sin, Jesus' death was an act of redemption (Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). By mediating and making peace between us and God, it was an act of reconciliation (Rom. 5:10-11). It opened the door to our justification (pardon and acceptance) and our adoption (becoming God's sons and heirs Rom. 5:1,9; Gal. 4:4-5).
This happy relationship with our Maker, based on and sealed by blood atonement, is the "New Covenant" of which Jesus spoke in the Upper Room (1 Cor. 11:25; Matt. 26:28).
34. Jesus and Germs
Illustration
Robert Allen
A little boy, growing up in a community where his father served as a Methodist minister was outside playing. He was doing all of the things that a little boy does. He was climbing trees. He was swinging on the swing set and jumping out. He was rolling and playing with his dog. His mother called him for dinner and all of the family gathered at the table. His mother looked at him and said, "Young man, let me see your hands."
There was some rubbing of his hands on his blue jeans before he held his hands up. His mother looked at them and asked, "How many times do I have to tell you that you must wash your hands before you eat? When your hands are dirty, they have germs all over them and you could get sick. After we say the blessing, I want you to march back to the bathroom and wash your hands."
Everyone at the table bowed their heads and the father said the blessing. Then, the little boy got up and headed out of the kitchen. He stopped, then turned and looked at his mother and said, "Jesus and germs! Jesus and germs! That's all I ever hear around here and I haven't seen either one of them."
That is a humorous little story, but it does point out the fact that our hands can be an identifying characteristic. According to the F.B.I., every one of us has a different set of fingerprints. We are all different, yet we can be identified by our hands. And the same was true for Jesus. On that first Easter, Peter and John gathered with the other disciples in that upper room to talk about the empty tomb and the possibility of the resurrection. As they were talking, Jesus came and stood among them. They were frightened, but Jesus reassured them by showing them his hands and feet. How often had the disciples seen those hands of Jesus touch blind eyes so they could see? How often had they seen his hands bless little children? How often had they seen him reach out hands and lift the cripple up and say, "Walk?" They saw the hands of Jesus and they knew that he was resurrected from the dead.
35. Unconditional Puppy Love
Illustration
Michael P. Green
One Sunday a little boy looked up at his dad and asked, “Daddy, how does God love us?” His father answered, “Son, God loves us with an unconditional love.”
The lad thought for a moment and then asked, “Daddy, what kind of love is unconditional love?” After a few minutes of silence his father answered, “Do you remember the two boys who used to live next door to us and the cute little puppy they got last Christmas?” “Yes.” “Do you remember how they used to tease it, throw sticks and even rocks at it?” “Yes.” “Do you also remember how the puppy would always greet them with a wagging tail and would try to lick their faces?” “Yes.” “Well, that puppy had an unconditional love for those two boys. They certainly didn’t deserve his love for them because they were mean to him. But, he loved them anyway.”
The father then made his point: “God’s love for us is also unconditional. Men threw rocks at his Son, Jesus, and hit him with sticks. They even killed him. But, Jesus loved them anyway.”
36. Mirror Image of God
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
There is a painting in a palace in Rome by Reni. It is painted into the ceiling of the dome, over 100 feet high. To stand at floor level and look upward, the painting seems to be surrounded by a fog which leaves its content unclear.
But in the center of the great dome room is a huge mirror, which in its reflection picks up the picture. By looking into the mirror you can see the picture with great clarity.
Jesus Christ, born in a manger at Bethlehem, is the mirror of God. In him we see a clear reflection of the Father. Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." No power on earth has done more to tame the hostile forces of humankind, and cause us to beat our swords in tools of useful productivity and our spears into peaceful instruments of creativity than this Child of Bethlehem, who came in weakness to lead us in strength.
37. Love: The Common Denominator
Illustration
Merlin Shorb
We are familiar with this phrase from our classes in arithmetic. When we are shown a random group of fractions, we must first find the divisor that is common to all of them. Once we have figured out that divisor, the common denominator, we can convert all our fractions to the same divisor. This will enable us to add and subtract the fractions. As long as we maintain the same ratio between numerator and denominator, the fractions are not changed in value. Reading our text, we find that the common denominator that underlies the whole of life is love. Whenever we are motivated by love, all else in life falls into line. The unique feature of Jesus of Nazareth is that love for his Father was his prime mover. He was thereby empowered to follow his Father’s wishes to the letter. We might say that for Jesus love was the lowest common denominator around which all the random "fractions" of life could come together.
38. Who Do You Say I Am? - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Jesus and his disciples ventured into the District of Caesarea Philippi, an area about 25 miles northeast of the Sea of Galilee. The region had tremendous religious implications. The place was littered with the temples of the Syrian gods. Here also was the elaborate marble temple that had been erected by Herod the Great, father of the then ruling Herod Antipas. Here also was the influence of the Greek gods. Here also the worship of Caesar as a God himself. You might say that the world religions were on display in this town. It was with this scene in the background that Jesus chose to ask the most crucial questions of his ministry.
He looked at his disciples and in a moment of reflection said: "Who do men say that I am?" The disciples begin sharing with Jesus what they have heard from the people who have been following Jesus: Some say that you are Elijah; others say John the Baptist, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. It's always been this way, Jesus as seen by the masses is seen in so many different ways.
You can speak of Jesus as prophet, holy man, teacher, or spiritual leader, and few will object. But speak of Him as Son of God, divine, of the same nature as the Father, and people will line up to express their disapproval.
A billion Muslims will say: "Prophet, yes. God, no!" Jews scattered around the world will say: "Teacher, yes. Messiah, no!" Liberal Protestants and religionists of various stripes will say: "Exemplary man, yes. Divine, no!" Who do people say he is? Who do you say he is? And what are we called to do? Let's take a look at the answers to these three question:
1. Who do men say that I am?
2. Who do you say that I am?
3. What is the church called to do?
39. How Poor Are You
Illustration
Jeff Olson
One day a father of a wealthy family took his son on a trip to the country with the purpose of showing him how poor people can be. They spent a day and a night on the farm of a very poor family. On their way back to their home, father and son got into a conversation about all they had experienced while at the farm.
"What did you think of our trip to the farm," asked the father.
"It was very good, Dad!"
"Did you see how poor people can be?" continued his father.
"Yeah!
"And what did you learn?"
"I saw that, while we have a dog at home, they have four dogs," the son replied. "We have a pool that reaches to the middle of the garden, while they have a creek that has no end. We have electric lamps in the garden, and they have a sky full of stars. Our patio goes all the way to the wall around our property. They have the whole horizon." When the little boy was finished, his father was speechless. "Thanks, Dad, for showing me how poor we really are!"
Nicodemus could not understand his poverty of soul until Jesus showed him how poor he really was. Nicodemus was a pillar of society and a religious leader but those things had little meaning. Nicodemus, Jesus said, you must be born again. The little boy saw what the father could not the value of the farm. Poverty is in the eye of the beholder.
40. Daddy, Do You Mean It?
Illustration
W. Robert McClelland
A ministerwas in the habit of telling his little girl a bedtime story each evening before tucking her in for the night. One evening he told her such a thrilling tale her eyes popped open. She sat up in bed studying her father. "Daddy, do you mean it, or are you just preaching?" Sometimes it is hard to know with preachers. Sometimes it is even hard to know with Jesus.
41. The Creed of Chalcedon
Illustration
Staff
We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent teach men toconfess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect inGodhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; coessential with the Father according to the Godhead, andconsubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like untous, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to theGodhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of theVirgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and thesame Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures,without confusion, without change, without division, without separation;the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, butrather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in oneperson and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but oneand the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning Him, and theLord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy fathershas handed down to us.
Note: The Chalcedonian Definition is a declaration of Christ's nature, adopted at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Chalcedon was an early centre of Christianity located in Asia Minor. The council was the fourth of the Ecumenical Councils that are accepted by Chalcedonian churches which include the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, the Anglican Communion and most Protestant churches. It was the first council not to be recognised by any Oriental Orthodox church; for this reason these churches may be classified as Non-Chalcedonian.
42. Transmitting Love
Illustration
King Duncan
Even when we are in mission we sometimes convey the wrong message. A teen-aged boy informed his father of a wonderful activity that they were going to do at his church's youth group. They were going to hand out blankets to the homeless. This was in Cleveland, Ohio where warmth is a necessity during the ruthless northeast winter. The young man exclaimed with fervor, "We're passing out blankets so that we can tell them about Jesus!" His father, simply and with certainty, corrected him. He explained, "We don't give blankets to the homeless to tell them about Jesus. We give blankets to the homeless because they're cold."
Do you understand the difference? If we are motivated by the idea that we're going to make our church a bigger church, then our witness will ring false. If, on the other hand, we are motivated simply by the desire to transmit the love we have received from Jesus, then the world will gladly receive us.
43. A Way to God
Illustration
King Duncan
Legend has it that before the Reformation, before he transformed the church, Martin Luther was in his room in the monastery weeping because of his sins. His confessor, a young man, simply didn't know what to do, so he began repeating the Apostles' Creed
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
"I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of Saints; the forgiveness of sins; the . . . ."
Wait!" Luther interrupted his confessor. "What did you say?"
What do you mean, what did I say?"
That last part. What was it again?"
Oh, that. I said, ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.'"
"The forgiveness of sins," Luther said as if savoring each word. "The forgiveness of sins.Then there is hope for me somewhere. Then maybe there is a way to God."
There is a way to God. Jesus Christ died to provide that way. We may not be a woman of the city but there are sins that break our hearts as well. And there is One who sees those broken hearts and cares, and forgives, and heals, and makes whole.
44. A Free Gift
Illustration
Robert Farrar Capon
You're worried about permissiveness in the way the preaching of grace seems to say it's okay to do all kinds of terrible things as long as you just walk in afterward and take the free gift of God's forgiveness. While you and I may be worried about seeming to give permission, Jesus apparently wasn't. He wasn't afraid of giving the prodigal son a kiss instead of a lecture, a party instead of probation; and he proved that by bringing in the elder brother at the end of the story and having him raise pretty much the same objections you do. He's angry about the party. He complains that his father is lowering standards and ignoring virtue that music, dancing, and a fatted calf are, in effect, just so many permissions to break the law. And to that, Jesus has the father say only one thing: "Cut that out! We're not playing good boys and bad boys any more. Your brother was dead and he's alive again. The name of the game from now on is resurrection, not bookkeeping.
45. Not Lost
Illustration
Michael P. Green
A little girl whose father had just died asked her mother where her father had gone. “To be with Jesus,” replied the mother.
A few days later, talking to a friend, the mother said, “I am so grieved to have lost my husband.”
The little girl heard her and, remembering what she had told her, asked, “Mother, is a thing lost when you know where it is?”
“No, of course not,” said her mom.
“Well, then, how can Daddy be lost when he has gone to be with Jesus?”
46. Meeting the Requirements to Drive
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
On his sixteenth birthday the son approached his father and asked, "Dad, I'm sixteen now. When I get my license can I drive the family car?"
His dad looked at him and said, "Son, driving the car takes maturity, and first, you must prove you are responsible enough. And one way you must do that is to bring up your grades. They are not acceptable. Secondly, you must read the Bible every day. And finally, I want you to get that haircut—it looks outrageous."
The son began the task of fulfilling his father's requirements, knowing that the last might be impossible. When his grades came out he came to his dad with a big smile. "Look, Dad, all A's and B's on my report card. Now can I drive the family car?"
"Very good, Son. You are one-third the way there, but have you been reading the Bible?" the father asked.
"Yes, Dad, everyday," said the son.
"Very good, Son. You are two-thirds of the way there. Now when are you going to get that hair cut?"
The son, thinking he could outsmart his dad, responded, "Well, I don't see why I should get my hair cut to drive the car. Jesus had long hair, didn't he?" The father looked at his boy and said, "That's right, Son, and Jesus walked everywhere he went."
47. TO BE WHAT WE ARE
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Gentle Jesus, meek and mild ... sweet, passive, wish-washy Jesus was not the man who whipped animals and beat up money changers at the annual Passover festival in Jerusalem. Tables overturned, money crashing to the floor, rolling everywhere, pigeons frantically flying for cover, men screaming in pain, adding salty language to the cacophony of sound and confusion all taking place in the Holy Temple. "What has the Master gotten himself into now?" his disciples probably worried. "Take these things away," Jesus screamed, "You shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade."
Slowly order was restored, perhaps coming at the point of Jesus’ exhaustion. Gingerly, Jews quizzed him on the appropriateness of his behavior. "What sign have you to show us for doing this?" they asked. A reasonable question from the uninitiated. One might rather have expected a few cries of "Throw the bum out of here" or demands for retribution. Jesus probably commanded so much authority that hasty action against him was not considered wise.
Our Lord's answer to their question confused his hearers. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," Jesus offered.
"It has taken forty-six years to build this temple and will you raise it up in three days?" they questioned in unbelief. At the time not even Jesus’ disciples understood what he was suggesting. Only after his resurrection did they realize that the temple referred to his body that would be destroyed and then resurrected in three days.
In Jesus’ ministry there is evidence that he regarded his death as the means by which the old sacrificial system would be condemned and the new Israel would come into being after his resurrection. Here he refers to his body as the temple. Later Saint Paul refers to the church as the "body of Christ" - a body alive, growing, reaching out, ever-changing with many parts working together for the good of the whole. Its hands are not made for patting itself on the back but for reaching out to the lost. Its eyes are not fixed on a rearview mirror looking at where it has been but are busy seeking a glimpse of the Father’s vision of where it should go. Its legs do not run in busy circles but walk the road of obedience. It does not lose heart when confronted by risk but follows the Spirit’s leading even into the unknown. Its mouth does not seek to speak of Jesus as the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, but as God’s gift of love and forgiveness for those who are hurting. The church endeavors to unite its mind with God’s mind, its will with his will, its purposes with his purposes, and its plans with his plans.
Seized by the Spirit of God the church lives as if all depends on God, for its very life is dependent upon God. It shares with God in the salvation of his children. As it does this, it gently comforts the afflicted and boldly afflicts the comfortable. Jesus, the church’s head, is its leader. Jesus, meek and mild, sometimes; Jesus, bold and belligerent, often.
"To be or not to be," is rarely the question for the church. Jesus dwells in the midst of our community. We are the church - the body of Christ. Come Holy Spirit, we pray, help us to be more completely what we are.
48. A Joyful Song
Illustration
A young soldier, while dying very happily, broke out in singing the following stanza:
"Great Jehovah, we adore thee,
God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit,
joined in glory on the same eternal throne:
Endless praised to Jehovah, three in one."
The chaplain then asked if he had any message to send his friends. "Yes," said he. "Tell my father that I have tried to eat my meals with thanksgiving."
"Tell him that Christ is now all my hope, all my trust, and that he is precious to my soul."
"Tell him that I am not afraid to die all is calm"
"Tell him that I believe Christ will take me to himself, and to my dear sister who is in heaven."
The voice of the dying boy faltered in the intervals between these precious sentences. When the hymn commencing, "Nearer, my God to thee," was read to him, at the end of each stanza he exclaimed, with striking energy, "Oh Lord Jesus, thou are coming nearer to me."
Also at the end of each stanza of the hymn (which was also read to him) commencing, "Just as I am without one plea, But that thy blood was shed for me, And that thou bid'st me come to thee, O Lamb of God, I come," he exclaimed, "I Come! O Lamb of God, I Come!" Speaking again of his friends, he said, "Tell my father that I died happy." His last words were, "Father, I'm coming to thee!" Then the Christian soldier sweetly and calmly "fell asleep in Jesus."
(Anonymous Confederate soldier 1861-65/died in battle in the War Between the States)
49. Where Are We At the Parable’s End?
Illustration
Frank G. Honeycutt
Let's step back outside with the older brother, still in need of a shower, arms folded across his chest, the moral high road. "But when this son of yours came back ... you killed the fatted calf for him." He cannot even bring himself to acknowledge his brother with a name "this son of yours." A sense of unfairness, as you know, can turn venomous rather quickly.
So where are we at parable's end? Are we inside the party celebrating? Or are we standing outside with our arms folded, refusing to come in? Jesus will not tell us how this story will end. The father passionately invites the older son inside, "pleads with him" to join in the welcome. Curiously, however, we are never told what the older brother decides to do. The story ends but it doesn't end. You can almost hear the voice of Walter Cronkite saying, "You are there." Will we RSVP to a party thrown by an unfair God? Or will we stubbornly remain outside? In a world where God does not play fair, this parable forces us to make a choice. Who is the real "prodigal" here? Who is the real "waster"? From the beginning Jesus says that this is a story about two brothers. Which one is the authentic prodigal? Which one has yet to come home to the Father's extravagant love?
50. Master of My Fate; Captain of My Soul
Illustration
Yearsago this country witnessed the execution of Timothy McVeigh, the man responsible for the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. A USA Today poll taken in April showed that 81 percent of Americans wanted McVeigh to be executed -- and 28 percent of that support was from people who are normally against the death penalty. No matter where you stand on the issue of capital punishment, this particular execution has forced itself on our consciousness. One thing that particularly caught my attention was that in lieu of any verbal comment, McVeigh gave a handwritten statement to the warden, quoting a section of the poem "Invictus," which is Latin for "unconquered." That poem, by 19th-century British poet William Ernest Henley (1849-1903), reads in part "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul." In case you haven't heard the poem, it goes like this:
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circ*mstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud,
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
From what we've learned of McVeigh's attitudes and opinions, those lines probably come as close as any to a philosophy of life for him. Even to the point of ending the appeals process, McVeigh sought to be the master of his fate. But of course he's not. And in a letter written just a day before his death, he demonstrated how little he understood that. He wrote that if it turned out that there was an afterlife, he would "improvise, adapt and overcome." As if he or any of us will have the ability to affect our environment after arrival in the world to come! Once we are at the judgment seat of God, none of us is any longer master of our fate.
It's worth noting that when the poet Henley wrote those words, he was not thinking of setting his own standard of morality, as McVeigh appears to have done. Far from claiming the right to be judge, jury and executioner of others, Henley was vocalizing his attitude toward the hurts and setbacks of life. At the age of 12, he developed tubercular arthritis, and his left foot was amputated in his teens. He had other health problems later on, and actually wrote "Invictus" while once again in the hospital, too ill to work. He was, as his poem says, "bloody, but unbowed." For Henley, "Invictus" was an expression of courage in the face of life's difficulties, not a license to kill.
McVeigh sounds an awful lot like the attitude of the legion of demons. The demons knew, once they saw Jesus’ boat land near their home town, that their days were numbered. So, they start bartering with Jesus. What are you doing here? What do you want with us? Please, don’t torture us. (There’s a hypocritical request if I ever heard one. They had been torturing this poor man for years and now they are begging for mercy.) Finally, knowing that they would have to leave their host they asked to be sent into a heard of nearby pigs. When this happens the pigs become disoriented and throw themselves along with the demons over the cliff and into the sea where they drown. McVeigh perhaps felt he could master his own fate even the fate that befalls us in the afterlife. Perhaps he will find what he is looking for but the demons did not; they bartered, got what they wanted, and lost!
The fullsermon can be found on Sermons.com by doing a Scripture search for Luke 12, the sermon titled, "God, The Enemy."
Showing
1
to
50
of
622
results
- Biden opens up about why he quit race, points to pressure from Democrats: ‘A transition president’
- Jeremiah Johnson’s brother claims he faked pro-Trump prophecies, visions
- UK tribunal member rebuked for bias in Christian teacher’s case: 'Undermining trust'
- Calvin Robinson warns UK on 'cusp of a civil war' amid simmering tensions, riots
- Megachurch pastor to pay ex-wife $12K per month in alimony after 33 years of marriage
- 300 Christian leaders demand action from US gov’t over persecution in India
- Cliques, exclusion top reasons Americans aren't getting more involved in their churches: survey
- 5 things to know about Tim Walz's faith, church and the ELCA
- This week in Christian history: All-Russian Church Council opens, James Strong born
- Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone credits God after doing what no woman has done before: 'Let me be the vessel'
- Some Churches Lose Coverage as Insurers Hit by a Wave of Storm Claims
- The Olympics’ Most Iconic Photo Has a Christian Message
- Died: Doris Brougham, Missionary Who Taught English to Taiwan
- Walz’s Brand Is More Left than Lutheran Among Minnesota Evangelicals
- Why Changes to India’s Colonial Criminal Code Concern Christians
- Gordon College Loses Religious Liberty Case for Loan Forgiveness
- Yes, Fiji Olympians Are Singing Hymns
- Churches Find a Homelessness Solution in Their Own Backyards
- Venezuelan Churches Brace for Migration Wave After Disputed Maduro Election
- Black Christian Leaders Find Hope with Kamala Harris
- A woman dies after being caught in a baggage carousel, and more shocking news
- 4 Signs That A Marriage Is Sure To End In Divorce—By A Psychologist
- Triptii Dimri and Avinash Tiwary’s Laila Majnu Goes From Box Office Dud To Soft Hit After Its Rerelease
- Oct. 7 hurt relationships between Jews and communities of color. We must reckon with this damage on Tisha B’Av
- Stretched 12 inches on the rack, crushed in iron maidens… or killed with an 'anal pear': Terrifying...
- The Druze Religion, Explained
- The Global Rise of Narco-Pentecostalism
- 'Lord, make them die an awful death': Prisoner's dark pleas found etched into Roman-era prison
- Ancient Babylonian Tablets Are Finally Deciphered. They’re Full of Bad News
- 9 Facts About Tim Walz’s Church
- Where is the Most Religious Place in the World?
- Bigoted Kamala Harris and Her Long History of Faith-Based Discrimination
- Why the Temple Curtain was Torn in Two When Jesus Died
- Parishes Preparing Their People for...What Exactly?
- 10 Years After Ferguson: What Does It Mean to Be the Church?
- You Cannot Lie Your Way to the Truth
- American Gen Z: Depressed and Spiritually Hungry
- Time to Reclaim Jewish Indigeneity
- Case Dismissed Against Man Charged in Death of Synagogue Leader
- New Book Explores Richard Nixon's Religious Journey
