Sunday, 30 December 2012

The Son of Mary

      The New Testament Gospels provide four independent accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Since they all deal with the same subject matter, there is understandably a great deal of overlap. Nevertheless, as each inspired author writes from a unique perspective, there are also a number of observable differences.
      According to the Gospel of Mark, when Jesus returned to his home community and taught in the local synagogue, the following sentiment was expressed about him: "‘Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?’ So they were offended at Him" (6:3 NKJV). In the other Gospels Jesus is referred to as "the carpenter’s son" (Matthew 13:55), "Joseph’s son" (Luke 4:22), and "the son of Joseph" (John 6:42) respectively. Only in Mark’s account is he identified as "the Son of Mary." While all of these statements were no doubt made, why has Mark chosen to record this particular expression? Its significance depends on the perspective with which it is viewed.
      From the standpoint of those who originally made the observation, it may have been intended as an insult. Within Jewish culture, one’s lineage was almost always linked to his father and/or other male ancestors (cf. Matthew 10:2-3; 16:17; Luke 3:23-38; etc.). An exception would be when there was a question about the moral integrity of one’s parentage (cf. Gen. 21:9-10; Judges 11:1-2). The residents of this particular community knew Jesus and his family, and the older generation would surely have remembered the alleged scandal of about three decades earlier.
      Mary, betrothed to a local carpenter named Joseph, seemed to be a virtuous young lady. But one day, after a visit to the hill country of Judah, she returned pregnant, and Joseph wasn’t the baby’s father! Now we have the advantage of knowing what was going on behind the scenes (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-45), but the contemporary locals presumably did not. You can imagine the shameful reports generated by the small-town rumor mill! Fast forward 30+ years as the hometown folks pondered: "Is this not . . . the Son of Mary?" Could there have been an undertone of contempt in these words? When Mark goes on to say that they were "offended" at him, the term he uses is skandalizō, the source of our English word "scandal." From this vantage point, Jesus is treated with disrespect and summarily dismissed. Is the prevailing world view of modern times any different?
      From a purely historical perspective, another connotation emerges. The fact that Mary is specifically named and her husband conspicuously unnamed may indicate that Joseph was no longer around, having died and leaving behind a widow with at least seven children. The last time in scripture Joseph is depicted alive is Luke 2:41-51, when young Jesus was merely twelve years old. Afterwards there are numerous references to Mary, almost always in the company of her children (Luke 8:19; John 2:1, 12; etc.), but Joseph is nowhere to be found. By the time the Lord’s public ministry had begun, if his mother was in fact a widow left to care for her family alone, what responsibilities did Jesus have toward her and his younger siblings? And did he fulfill these domestic obligations or did he forsake them?
      If certain texts are read in isolation (e.g. Mark 3:31-35; 10:29-30), one might get the impression that Jesus neglected or even abandoned his temporal family, thereby giving others permission to do the same. But nothing could be further from the truth! As the Lord’s earthly ministry was carried out, his mother and his brothers (and sisters) remained in his company (John 2:12), and before his death he ensured that they would continue to be taken care of (John 19:25-27; cf. Acts 1:13-14). From this perspective we learn the divine expectation of fulfilling family duties (cf. 1 Timothy 5:8), exemplified in the life of Christ.
      When Jesus is called "the Son of Mary," there is a third consideration. From a theological standpoint, the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is indicated. God had spoken through the prophet Isaiah: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel [i.e. ‘God with us’]" (Isaiah 7:14). Seven centuries later, when baby Jesus is supernaturally conceived in Mary’s womb without a human father, Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled (Matthew 1:21-23). Having been "born of a woman" by divine decree, Jesus is thus recognized as the Son of God (Galatians 4:4). Seeing that he is linked to humanity through his biological mother while maintaining his union with divinity ("God with us"), he serves as the perfect mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2:5).
      Who is the Son of Mary? From a worldly point of view, he is someone to be ridiculed and disregarded. From a historical standpoint, he is seen as a real person with a real family who took seriously his responsibilities as a devoted son and older brother. From a theological viewpoint, he is God in the flesh, providing redemption for mankind and reconciliation to the heavenly throne. How is the Son of Mary viewed from your perspective?
--Kevin L. Moore

Related PostsTempted as we are, Isaiah 7:14

Sunday, 23 December 2012

Christ's "Inner Circle"

     Simon Peter and his brother Andrew, along with James and his brother John, are always mentioned first in the biblical record whenever the apostles are listed together by name (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). They were the first to be called by Christ to comprise his immediate band of followers (Mark 1:16-20), and both sets of brothers appear to have been present when Jesus healed Simon’s mother-in-law of a fever (Mark 1:29-31). Throughout the remainder of the Gospel narratives, with the single exception of Mark 13:3-4, Andrew essentially fades into the background as the other three rise to prominence.
     Peter, James, and John were the only disciples allowed to accompany Jesus when he raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Mark 5:37). On the mountain where Christ was transfigured in the presence of Moses and Elijah, none of the apostles was invited to witness this glorious event except Peter, James, and John (Mark 9:2). In the Garden of Gethsemane, not long before his arrest and eventual execution, the Lord selected only Peter, James, and John to accompany him to a solitary place for prayer (Mark 14:32-35).
     Why were these three men consistently singled out and set apart from the others? Why were they given unique opportunities that were unavailable to anyone else? What was so special about them to be allowed into Christ’s most inner circle? The following observations may be of interest.
UNLIKELY REPRESENTATIVES
     Peter, James and John were among the most unlikely representatives of Christ. As Galilean fishermen, skilled in handling boats, nets and fish, what did Jesus see in them as prospective teachers and spiritual leaders? They were clearly not men of polish, prestige, and influence. They lacked formal education and rhetorical training (Acts 4:13) and were certainly not the brightest and most refined that could have been chosen. Each had significant character flaws as well. Peter was erratic and impulsive, slow to listen and quick to react. He regularly misread situations and misunderstood the Lord’s purpose, requiring constant rebuke and correction (Matthew 14:31; 16:22-23; 26:33-35; John 13:6-8; 18:10-11; et al.). James and John, apparently due to their fiery temperaments, earned the unenviable title "sons of thunder" (Mark 3:17). They were impatient, intolerant, and quick to judge (Luke 9:54), not to mention prideful and self-seeking (Mark 10:35-44).
     As Jesus looked beyond their glaring imperfections and saw extraordinary potential, these unimpressive and profoundly flawed human beings went on to become effective evangelists and capable leaders in the early Christian movement. As a matter of fact, it is precisely because of their heightened fallibility that the power of God is more clearly evident in all they achieved. And the same Lord is still capable of accomplishing the unexpected through imperfect people like you and me.
For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. (1 Corinthians 1:26-29, NKJV)
NICKNAMED BY CHRIST
     Another intriguing observation is that Peter, James and John are the only three apostles to have been nicknamed by Christ. Petros ("Peter"), the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic Kēphas ("Cephas"), is the designation Jesus gave to Simon (Mark 3:16; John 1:42). Such a respectable name, meaning "a stone" and thus signifying firmness and stability, is clearly not descriptive of what Simon was like when he first received it. Nonetheless, it is precisely what he was expected to become (see Jesus Called Him 'Peter' Only Twice). The Lord designated James and John Boanērges, Aramaic for "sons of thunder" (Mark 3:17). As noted above, this appears to have been indicative of their volatile dispositions at the time but certainly not what they were expected to be.
     We see here the use of two different approaches to achieve comparable goals. Peter’s name was a constant reminder of the rock-solid character he needed to develop, whereas James and John’s less-than-flattering moniker highlighted what they needed to overcome. Different people are motivated by different things. While the ultimate aim of all that Paul and his colleagues did was "to be well pleasing to [the Lord]" (2 Corinthians 5:9), other motivating factors included the coming judgment (v. 10), the terror of the Lord (v. 11), and the love of Christ (v. 14). What compels you might not have as strong of an influence on me, and vice versa. As we "exhort one another daily" (Hebrews 3:13), we ought to utilize whatever works most effectively for each person.
THE WEAKEST DISCIPLES?
     Although Peter, James and John have historically been acknowledged as the Lord’s "inner circle," this does not necessarily mean they were his favorites. It may rather suggest that they were among the weakest disciples and needed the extra attention. In view of the extreme importance of the work they were being called to do, and considering their significant shortcomings and the fact that Jesus was not one to show partiality, this seems to be a reasonable deduction.
     The lesson here is that each member of Christ’s body is not only different but has unique potential with accompanying needs. None is without importance, all have God-given responsibilities, and every disciple should be directed accordingly.
No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schims in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. (1 Corinthians 12:22-24)
RESPECTIVE LENGTHS OF SERVICE
    Peter, James and John were prepared by the Lord for active roles in his kingdom and for different lengths of service. After only fourteen years of preaching the gospel, the apostle James was killed in AD 44 by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2). The apostle Peter reportedly suffered martyrdom at the hands of Nero in the mid-60s (cf. 2 Peter 1:14), ending approximately three and a half decades of missionary activity. Traditionally the apostle John is believed to have died near the end of the first century after seventy notable years of apostolic ministry.
     Here we learn that what really matters to the Lord is not longevity of service but faithfulness to the task. The parable of the vineyard workers likens the kingdom of heaven to a landowner employing laborers for his vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). Those hired early in the morning agree to the customary daily wage, whereas others recruited throughout the day end up receiving the same amount. From a worldly point of view, those who labored for the shorter periods were in a favorable position compared to the ones who worked the longest. But from the heavenly perspective, what a blessing it is to serve God on earth for as long as possible! The later in life one puts off obeying and serving Christ, the more he/she misses out on what is truly worthwhile. James was blessed with a few good years of productive ministry, and while he went on to his eternal reward comparatively early, Peter had the greater honor of serving for a longer period of time. But it was John who had the greatest privilege of laboring in the Lord’s vineyard the longest.
CONCLUSION
     Can you in any way relate to Peter, James, and/or John? Are you an unlikely representative of Jesus? Have you discovered what effectively motivates you to faithfulness? Are you weak and in regular need of spiritual support? Do you possess a sincere willingness to remain committed to the Lord until the end? If so, welcome to Christ’s inner circle!

--Kevin L. Moore

Related PostsJohn of ZebedeeJames of ZebedeeSimon Peter

Image credit: https://eastdailyoffice.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/jesusjamesjohn-srgregoryemsosb-800.jpg   

Sunday, 16 December 2012

Leaving All to Follow Jesus

      After Jesus’ warning of the potential dangers of earthly riches, Simon Peter exclaims: "See, we have left all and followed you" (Mark 10:28).1 What did Peter mean by this lofty statement, what all did it entail, and what implications does it have for followers of Christ today?
      When the Lord first called Simon Peter and his brother and companions, "they forsook all and followed Him" (Luke 5:11). Yet soon afterwards Jesus "entered the house of Simon and Andrew," where Simon’s ailing mother-in-law was healed (Mark 1:29-31). Whatever was involved in leaving "all" to follow Christ, Simon Peter still kept his house (cf. John 20:10), his mother-in-law, and apparently his bride. In fact, years later the apostle Paul appeals to Peter’s marital status as indicative of his own "right to take along a believing wife" (1 Corinthians 9:5). As a disciple of Jesus, therefore, Peter kept his marriage and family intact.  
      When Peter first became Christ’s follower he also owned a fishing boat, which the Lord had used as a teaching platform (Luke 5:3). Later Jesus instructed his disciples to keep a small boat handy in case he needed it (Mark 3:9), and on another occasion he once again boarded a boat to teach (Mark 4:1-2). As the Gospel narrative continues, there are recurring references to "the boat," suggesting a particular vessel that was readily available for the Lord’s use. The disciples took Jesus along in the boat (Mark 4:36) as they encountered a storm that required his miraculous intervention. Jesus sent his disciples ahead in the boat (Mark 6:45) and joined them by walking on the sea. Throughout his ministry he crossed the Sea of Galilee multiple times in the boat (Mark 5:2, 18, 21; 6:32; 8:10, 14).2 And after the Lord’s death and resurrection, when Simon Peter decided to go fishing, he and others "got into the boat . . ." (John 21:3).3
      When Peter reportedly "left all" to follow Jesus Christ, he did not abandon his wife, his family obligations, his house, or presumably his boat (used often in the Lord’s service). Therefore to fully appreciate the implications of Peter’s statement in Mark 10:28, the surrounding context must be considered.
      In Mark 10:17-22 Jesus had encountered a wealthy young ruler whose earthly riches were of greater value to him than heavenly treasure.4 The Lord’s instruction to sell the material possessions and give the proceeds to the poor was not a universal pronouncement. Knowing this particular individual’s heart and misplaced priorities, Jesus simply identifies what he needed to do to remove the spiritual impediments in his life (cf. 9:43-48). No one can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24) and have one foot in the Lord’s kingdom while keeping the other stubbornly planted in the world.
      As Christ goes on to explain the extreme difficulty of the rich entering God’s kingdom, the disciples are "astonished" (Mark 10:23-26a). Such a concept, so different from the rabbinic teaching that wealth is allegedly an indicator of divine favor, causes them to wonder, "Who then can be saved?" (v. 26b). The bottom line is, no one can be saved by human effort, achievement, or prosperity. The good news is, as Jesus affirms, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible" (v. 27).
      Here is where Peter responds: "See, we have left all and followed You" (Mark 10:28). Nevertheless, as noted above, he had not given up his wife, his house, or his boat, not to mention his sandals, clothing, staff, sword, et al. (cf. Mark 6:8-9; John 18:10; Acts 12:8). Leaving all and following Jesus clearly does not call for physically impoverishing oneself. The fundamental requisite, then, is an inner detachment from earthly ties. This includes one’s house, siblings, parents, spouse, children, and lands (Mark 10:29; cf. Matthew 19:29; Luke 18:29). In other words, absolute loyalty and commitment to the Lord Jesus ought to surpass one’s connection to all earthly possessions and even the closest of human relationships.
      If I own a house, it shall be considered the Lord’s possession to be used for his purpose.5 If I have a vehicle, it will be readily available for God’s work.6 If I have parents, they will be respected and cared for.7 If I am married, I will love and honor my spouse and promote heaven as our mutual destination.8 If I have children, they will be trained in Christ’s service.9 If I have a job, I will work with diligence and integrity as to the Lord.10 If I have financial means, I will be generous in accordance with the divine will.11 Consequently, with this kind of priority list, the resulting blessings are manifold – both "now in this time . . . and in the age to come" (Mark 10:30).
      From a worldly perspective this may not make a lot of sense and is completely foreign to how sinful men operate. But seeing that "the world is passing away . . ." (1 John 2:17), we must put our complete trust in the Lord when he says: "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it" (Matthew 10:37-39). What is more important to you than following Jesus and thereby leading your loved ones into eternity?
– Kevin L. Moore
 
Endnotes:
        1 See also Matthew 19:27; Luke 18:28. All scripture quotations are from the NKJV (1985).
      2 While the NKJV does not append the definite article ("the") to "boat" in Mark 5:21, the article does appear in the Greek text.
      3 See also Matthew 8:23; 9:1; 13:1-2; 14:13, 22; 15:39; Luke 8:22, 37; John 6:17, 24; 21:6. Note that the "little boat" of John 21:8 is comparable to the "small boat" of Mark 3:9.
      4 While all three synoptic accounts inform us of the man’s great wealth (Matthew 19:22; Mark 10:22; Luke 18:23), it is Matthew alone who reveals that he was "young" (19:20, 22) and only Luke who says that he was a "ruler" (18:18).
      5 Matthew 9:28; 13:1, 36; 17:24-25; Mark 2:1-2; 9:33; 14:14-15; Romans 12:13; 16:5, 23; etc.
      6 Luke 10:34; Mark 4:36; 11:2-3; Acts 8:28-31; 13:4; etc.
      7 Matthew 15:3-6; Colossians 3:20; 1 Timothy 5:4-8, 16; etc.
      8 1 Corinthians 7:3-4; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7; etc.
      9 Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21; etc.
      10 Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-13; etc.
      11 Luke 6:38; Romans 12:8; 15:24-26; 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 9:6-7; etc.

Related Posts: Cross-BearingAnd With Many Other Words

Sunday, 9 December 2012

One of the Worst Things About Hell

      About fifteen centuries before Christ, the Israelites were led into the Sinai Wilderness where they received the Law of Moses. Included in these guidelines were prohibitions against following after false gods, particularly Molech (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5). Molech was an Ammonite deity served by burning children alive as human sacrifices. When I read these regulations, I can’t help but wonder why God’s people, or anyone else for that matter, would have to be told not to do this! But the Lord, in his infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, determined that it was necessary for such warnings to be issued.
     After four decades in the wilderness, when the Israelites entered, conquered, and inhabited the land of Canaan, the territory was divided among the twelve tribes. Within Judah’s allotment the city of Jerusalem was established, to the west of which was a valley called ben Hinnom or the Valley of the Son (or Children) of Hinnom (Joshua 15:8; 18:16). For the next five centuries Israel thrived in the Promised Land, reaching the pinnacle of her national glory under the leadership of King David and on into the reign of his son Solomon.
     Unfortunately Solomon was not the man after God’s own heart that his father was (1 Kings 9:4; 11:4), and among his numerous transgressions was the setting aside of a place of worship for Molech (1 Kings 11:7). It is unlikely that Solomon ever envisioned the horrific atrocities that would occur once these flood gates were opened, but within the next couple of centuries Solomon’s own descendants were offering their children to Molech as burnt sacrifices (2 Chronicles 28:1-3; 33:1-6). Fifty years ago, at least among most civilized nations, who would have imagined that the mass killing of unborn babies in government-financed abortion clinics would be approved by society’s mainstream and demanded as an intrinsic right of pregnant mothers?!
     The place where the Jews committed these abominations was called Topheth in the Valley of Hinnom (Jeremiah 7:31). The name Topheth is believed to have come from the Hebrew toph (meaning "drum"), seeing that drums were used to drown out the torturous cries of the burning children. As God’s Law was ignored and neglected for generations, such heinous sins became commonplace among the Jewish people.
     Then around 622 BC, when the Book of the Law was rediscovered in the temple, King Josiah set forth to bring about repentance and to restore pure religion. Among his many reforms was the defilement of Topheth in the Valley of Hinnom (2 Kings 23:10), desecrating the hallowed place with unclean things to render it unfit for any kind of religious activity. From that time onward the valley became a refuse dump for putrid waste, rotting animal carcasses, decaying corpses of executed criminals, and all manner of filth. It was a place where fires burned continually in the futile attempt to deplete the amassing mountains of garbage and to mask the horrid stench.
     Fast forward to the time of Christ. In Mark 9:42-48 three times the Lord graphically emphasizes the importance of ridding oneself of whatever leads to sin in order to avoid ending up in the place he describes as Gehenna (Greek geenna). While this term is rendered in most English versions as "hell," it is derived from the Aramaic Gēhannā and its Hebrew equivalent Ge Hinnom, meaning "Valley of Hinnom." Similar to picturing heaven with the most beautiful and precious things known to man (e.g. Revelation 21:11-21), the Lord portrays the destination of the wicked with imagery familiar to his listening audience. The most disgusting place imaginable was the rubbish dump outside of Jerusalem, with its decomposing cadavers covered in maggots ("where their worm does not die") and its perpetual smoldering ("and the fire is not quenched").
     Other biblical descriptions of hell include, "eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence" (2 Thessalonians 1:9); "furnace of fire" (Matthew 13:42a, 50a); "outer darkness" (Matthew 8:12a; 25:30a); "the wailing and the gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 8:12b; 13:42b, 50b; 25:30b); "everlasting fire/punishment" (Matthew 25:41, 46); "vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7); "tormented in fire and sulphur," "the smoke of their torment forever and ever goes up," "no rest day and night," "the lake of fire burning with sulphur," and "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 14:10-11; 19:20; 20:10, 15).1 As horrible and as terrifying as these images seem, there are other despicable things about hell not specifically mentioned in scripture but certainly implied.
     One of the worst things about hell is that it is a place where there are no children. In fact, both before and after Christ’s warning about Gehenna (Mark 9:43-48), children were the topic of discussion. In Mark 9:33-37 Jesus teaches his disciples an important lesson about meekness and humility by taking a small child in his arms and saying, "Whoever receives one of these children in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, not only receives me but the one having sent me." Then in Mark 10:13-16 the Lord seizes another opportunity to impart a similar object lesson. Upset by the disciples having rebuked certain ones for bringing young children to be blessed by him, Jesus says, "Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them, for of such is the kingdom of God. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child, by no means will enter into it."
     The Lord obviously considers children to be the epitome of spiritual purity, innocence, humility, eagerness to learn, receptivity, trust, and among the best examples of what it means to be nonjudgmental. During the Croatian War of Independence in the early 1990s, there was a television commercial depicting two boys in a room (a Croat and a Serb) sitting on either end of a sofa. It didn’t take long for the youngsters to start looking at each other, then talking and moving closer together, and finally laughing and playing together. By the end of the one-minute scene they were the best of friends, while their adult family members and neighbors were at war. No further comment necessary.
     I have always loved children. But when my wife and I had our own, it gave me a whole new perspective. Most of us understand the joy that comes into a family when a child is born or adopted (cf. Luke 1:14; John 16:21). As we "receive the kingdom of God as a child," are we not to be harbingers of joy? (John 15:11; 16:24; 17:13; Acts 8:8, 39; 15:3). There is nothing more peaceful than a sleeping baby. I remember all the stress and anxiety in my life disappearing whenever I held one of my infant daughters as she slept. "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9; cf. Romans 12:18; Hebrews 12:14). We also learn patience from our little ones. Most parents have to admit that we are much more patient now than before we had kids. While the Bible tells us to be patient (1 Corinthians 13:4; 1 Thessalonians 5:14), our children teach us to be patient (see Love is Patient).
     What about crying babies and noisy youngsters in the worship assemblies? I must confess that I am more sympathetic and less distracted now than I was before having my own kids. I really appreciate conscientious parents who understand the importance of nurturing their children in the training and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). What an encouragement to see entire families (little ones included) regularly attending church services. We could probably have a quieter environment with fewer disturbances if we banned all the children from coming to church, but I’m pretty sure the Lord would not approve of such an alternative!
     "And [God] will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither sorrow, nor crying, nor pain . . . . But as for the cowardly, unbelieving, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, these will have their part in the lake burning with fire and sulphur, which is the second death" (Revelation 21:4, 8).
     Heaven will be filled with children, including all those sacrificed to pagan gods, all who have been slaughtered in abortion clinics, all who have been stillborn, and all who have died from accident, sickness, or abuse. Yes, heaven will be full of children, but not a single one will be in hell. Where do you want to spend eternity?
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnote:
       1 Scripture quotations in English are the author’s own translation.

Related articles: Stan Mitchell's Is there a Hell?

Image Credit: http://www.logianalytics.com/blog/logi-analytics-excel-hell-is-no-joke

Friday, 30 November 2012

Barabbas

       The world of Barabbas was forged by centuries of tyranny and repression from foreign powers, fostering a revolutionary spirit among the Palestinian Jews. Back in the 2nd-century BC, under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers, the Maccabean revolt led to the overthrow of Seleucid dominance and the restoration of Jewish sovereignty. While their independence was seemingly bolstered by a treaty formed with the Romans in 161 BC, the stage was set for future oppression and subjugation.
      General Pompey, while establishing Syria as a Roman province, was compelled to intervene in the Judean civil war in 63 BC, from which time Judea was regarded as a Roman protectorate. Antipater, a Judaized Idumean loyal to Rome, was set up as Judea’s governor, and in 37 BC his son, Herod the Great, was appointed by the Roman Senate as Judea’s king. After gaining control of the region by force of arms, he reigned as a friend of Rome for over three decades.1 Near the end of Herod’s authoritarian regime a census was ordered by Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1-2), probably for statistical reasons. The population of this occupied territory had to be calculated to determine the number of troops needed to be stationed there.2
      Jewish resentment and hostility finally reached breaking point in AD 6 when Judea was designated a Roman province and another census was taken for taxation purposes (Acts 5:37; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.1; 2.1). Evidently the celebrated revolt of Judas Maccabeus was still fresh on their minds, with the ongoing popularity of the name "Judas"3 and the annual observances of Hanukkah and the Day of Nicanor.4 The Zealot movement, inciting rebellion against the Romans and culminating in the Jewish War of AD 66-70, was inevitable. This was the world of Barabbas. And it was within this politically turbulent environment that the conflicting paths of Barabbas and Jesus the Christ intersected.
      The name Barabbas is the Graecized form of the Aramaic Bar-abbâ – a combination of bar ("son of") and abba ("father") – meaning "son of [the] father." There is an interesting variant in the text tradition of Matthew 27:16, wherein some manuscripts read Iēsoun Barabban ("Jesus Barabbas," cf. NRSV). While the name "Jesus" (Heb. "Joshua") was not uncommon among the Jews,5 whether or not it was original to Matthew’s text does not obscure this intriguing comparison. Jesus of Nazareth was clearly the Son of the heavenly Father (John 8:16-29), whereas [Jesus?] Barabbas manifested a very different spiritual paternity (cf. John 8:44).
      Matthew describes Barabbas as a "notable" or "notorious" prisoner (27:16),6 indicative of his well-known status among the Jews, the Romans, or both. John says that he was a lēstēs (18:40), i.e. a violent criminal like "a bandit" or "a robber."7 There were at least two other criminals who had been arrested with him (Luke 23:32-39; John 19:18), also identified as lēstai, "bandits" or "robbers" (Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27). Seeing that Barabbas and his cohorts were charged not only with murder but also "rebellion" (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:25), it is not insignificant that Josephus employs the term lēstēs with reference to revolutionaries (cf. War 2.13.5-6; Ant. 14.9.2). It would appear that Barabbas and his fellow rebels were Zealots or freedom fighters, engaged in the Jewish resistance against the Romans. This explains why Barabbas seems to have been so popular among the Jews and why it was so easy for them to be persuaded to plead for his release (Matthew 27:20, 21; Mark 15:11; Luke 23:18; John 18:40).
      Prior to Jesus’ arrest, he too had been highly esteemed by the Jerusalem populace. Entering the city with multitudes lining the streets, he was hailed as "King," a direct descendent of the great military hero David, with cries of Hosanna, i.e., "please save" or "save now!" (Matthew 21:1-9; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:28-44; John 12:12-19). The Jews had long anticipated a messianic figure to "redeem Israel" from repression (Luke 24:21) and to "restore the kingdom to Israel" (Acts 1:6), supposedly by way of violent opposition (Matthew 11:12; cf. John 6:15). The shouts of "King" during Christ’s triumphal entry were within earshot of the Pharisees (Luke 19:38-39; cf. John 12:19), who went on to accuse Jesus of making this claim himself (Luke 23:2-3; John 19:21), as though he were challenging the authority of the Roman Emperor (John 19:12, 15).
      Shortly before he was lumped together with Barabbas and the other outlaws, the Lord asked his captors, "Have you come out as against a lēstēs ['bandit,' 'robber,' 'revolutionary'] . . .?" (Luke 22:52). Presumably the particular application of this term would depend on whether it was from a Roman or a Jewish perspective. Jesus was accused of sedition, treason, and insurrection (Luke 23:2, 3, 5, 14; John 19:12).8 When Pontius Pilate gave the Jewish crowds the choice of which prisoner to be released – the humble Galilean preacher (Jesus) or the defiant patriotic militant (Barabbas) – their decision was no doubt influenced by their misconceived messianic expectations.9 Consequently, Barabbas’ death sentence was repealed, while the Lord Jesus was condemned to be crucified.
      Before we are too hard on Barabbas, consider the following comparisons and what you and I share in common with him. (1) Barabbas was genuinely guilty, whereas Jesus was entirely innocent (Luke 23:14-19). "There is not a righteous person, not one . . . . for all have sinned and come short of God’s glory" (Romans 3:10, 23). (2) Justice demanded Barabbas’ punishment, but it was Jesus who was treated like a criminal (Mark 15:7, 14). "He made the one not knowing sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). (3) Barabbas was set free, while Jesus was held captive (Matthew 27:2, 26). "Truly, truly I say to you that everyone committing sin is a slave of sin . . . . If therefore the Son frees you, you will be free indeed" (John 8:34, 36). (4) The center cross was intended for Barabbas, yet Jesus took his place (John 19:18). "But God commends his own love unto us, that while we were still sinners Christ died on our behalf" (Romans 5:8). (5) Barabbas was permitted to live, while Jesus suffered death (Mark 15:15, 37). "But God being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, he made us alive with Christ – by grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:4-5).
      We are all guilty of sin and well deserving of the just penalty. Instead we have been extended mercy and offered forgiveness because Jesus has taken our place, paying the price for our sins, so that we can live eternally as the redeemed. There is no reliable evidence that Barabbas ever capitalized on the second chance Jesus afforded him. May this be where our commonality with Barabbas ends!
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
       1 See Ancient Terrorists; also R. H. Gundry, A Survey of the NT (3rd ed.) 29-33; L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 22-34.
      2 See Luke's Historical Blunder?; also M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclopedia 2:185-86; A. Plummer, The Gospel According to S. Luke 49-52.
      3 Cf. Matthew 10:4; Mark 6:3; Luke 6:16; Acts 5:37; 9:11; 15:22.
      4 Cf. 1 Maccabees 4.36-59; 7.39-50; 2 Maccabees 1.18; 15.1-36; Josephus, Ant. 12.5–13.7; War 1.3-6.
      5 Cf. Acts 13:6; Colossians 4:11; Hebrews 4:8; Josephus, War 6.5.3.
      6 The term used in Matthew 27:16 is episēmos (epi + sēma), descriptive of one who bears a distinctive mark, i.e. "noted" or "eminent" (cf. Romans 16:7). All scripture quotations in English are the author’s own translation.
      7 Cf. Luke 10:30, 36; 2 Corinthians 11:26.
      8 See also Matthew 27:11, 29, 37, 42; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26, 32; Luke 23:37, 38; John 18:33, 39; 19:3, 14, 15.
      9 It had become customary during the Passover feast for the Roman procurator in Judea to release to the Jews a prisoner of their choosing (Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6, 8; Luke 23:17; John 18:39). This was neither a law nor a custom of the Romans or the Jews. While it may have been based on the Jewish tradition of Jubilee (cf. Leviticus 25:10) or perhaps connected to the Passover theme of deliverance (cf. Exodus 12:27), it appears to have been an attempt to placate the Jews in order to deter further civil unrest and maintain some level of peace (cf. Matthew 27:24; Mark 15:15; John 19:8, 12).

Saturday, 24 November 2012

Ancient Terrorists

       In recent years International News has been dominated by the violent turmoil throughout North Africa and the Middle East, particularly in relation to the so-called "Arab Spring." Authoritarian regimes have been challenged and tyrannical dictators have fallen, while others remain defiant and oppressive. One can never underestimate the passion and determination of an oppressed people who long for civil rights and freedom. But rebellion, militancy, and even terrorism are nothing new, especially in the ancient Near East.
      In the 4th century BC, the inhabitants of Judea surrendered to the armies of Alexander the Great and were begrudgingly absorbed into the rapidly expanding Grecian Empire. When Alexander died and his conquests were divided into four smaller kingdoms, the Palestinian Jews were afflicted by the Ptolemies of Egypt to the south and by the Seleucids of Syria to the north. In the 2nd century BC, while Judea was under the control of the Seleucids, the ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes fiercely reacted to an attempted coup by attacking Jerusalem, pillaging the temple, erecting altars to Greek gods, and banning Jewish scriptures, sacrifices, feasts, and circumcision. The corresponding Jewish revolt, led by Judas Maccabeus, finally broke the power of the Seleucids and restored freedom and independence to Judea . . . . for a time.
      Not long after the Jews had wrenched free from Syrian rule, their territory was gradually seized by the growing Roman Empire. Herod the Great was appointed by Rome as king of Judea in 37 BC, and he gained control of the region by force of arms and ruled as a friend of Rome for over three decades. Judea was established as a Roman province in AD 6, a military governor (procurator) was stationed there, and the residents were then required to pay taxes to the Roman government. The Jewish people had gone from an autonomous, self-governing nation to the occupation and control of a foreign power. This is the world that Jesus knew.
      It was in this context that the Zealot movement was born. The Zealots were the ones responsible for instigating the Jewish revolt of AD 66, provoking the brutal response of the Romans that resulted in the demolition of the Jewish temple and the city of Jerusalem in AD 70. Some historians classify the Zealots as a separate Jewish sect, whereas others consider them to have been an extreme wing of the Pharisees. They were zealous for Jewish sovereignty, promoted insurrection and violence against the pagan occupiers, and engaged in assassinations and armed conflict. They typically targeted Romans or representatives of Rome, while the Sicarii, named after the small daggers (sicai) they used, also turned against fellow-Jews suspected as apostates or enemy collaborators.
      With this background in mind, we can more clearly understand the words of Jesus in Matthew 11:12: "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force" (NKJV). We can also appreciate the dilemma the Pharisees and Herodians attempted to create for the Lord by asking him whether or not it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:17). They apparently assumed, in this volatile environment, that whatever answer he gave would have incited the fury of either the Romans or the Zealots against him.
      There are a number of New Testament characters who seem to have been involved in the Zealot movement, including Theudas, Judas of Galilee, and an unnamed Egyptian (Acts 5:36-37; 21:38). Barabbas, the criminal who was pardoned from execution instead of Jesus, appears to have been included among these political extremists, seeing that he and his fellow rebels "had committed murder in the rebellion" (Mark 15:7; cf. Luke 23:19, 25).
      Some of the Zealots even found their way into the Christian movement. One of the Lord’s personal disciples, Simon, is explicitly labeled "the zealot" by Luke (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). While Matthew (10:4) and Mark (3:18) use the more obscure term Kananites, which is rendered in many English versions as "Cananite," it is actually derived from a Hebrew word meaning "zealot." Even more information is available on the background of Saul of Tarsus, who maliciously targeted Jewish Christians whom he considered apostates from the Jewish faith (Acts 8:1; 9:1, 21; 22:4-5, 19-20; 26:10; etc.). In the Greek text of Acts 22:3, as Paul recounts his violent past, the noun form is used to identify him as "a zealot" of God. Also, in Galatians 1:14 Paul again employs the noun form to describe his former activity in Judaism as "a zealot."
      From the above information, the following lessons can be learned. Firstly, Jesus transforms individual lives. The apostle Paul, because of his sordid past, regarded himself as less than the least of all the saints (Ephesians 3:8), the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15), and unworthy to be called an apostle (1 Corinthians 15:9). But thanks to the transforming power of Jesus, the former Zealot became an unwavering advocate of the Christian faith. This clearly demonstrates that no one is too bad to be accepted by Christ and changed into something better. It also indicates that no matter where a person might be in his/her spiritual development, with the Lord’s help improvements can be made. It further shows that Christians ought to be careful about prematurely judging one’s potential receptivity (or lack thereof) based upon immediate appearances or lifestyle. After all, it was an ex-terrorist who said, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" (Philippians 4:13).
      Secondly, Jesus transforms relationships. While the Zealots were vehemently opposed to the Romans and their collaborators, including those who gathered Caesar’s taxes, Jesus brought together Simon the Zealot and Matthew the tax collector, making enemies into brothers. The Lord still has the power to transform strained or broken relationships, whether in the home, in the church, or in the community. The key is learning and heeding his biblical directives, with each person involved recognizing that the process begins with "me" (Romans 12:18).
      Finally, Jesus enables us to harnesses our zeal and focus it in the right direction. Everyone is passionate about something. Intense enthusiasm can either be good or bad, depending on whether or not it is controlled and where it is directed. It is not enough to have "a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge" (Romans 10:2). May the Lord help us to redirect our energies, if necessary, toward eagerly fulfilling his perfect will. From the reflections of a former Zealot, we read: "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me" (1 Corinthians 15:9-10).
--Kevin L. Moore

Related PostBarabbas

Sunday, 18 November 2012

John's Audience

      The Gospel of John was written by a Palestinian Jew, exhibiting detailed knowledge of the topography of Palestine (cf. 1:44; 2:1; 4:5-6, 21; 9:7; 11:18; 18:1) and reflecting personal acquaintance with features of conservative Judaism and Jewish tradition (e.g. 1:19-28; 4:9, 20). He was also accustomed to thinking in Aramaic, as few subordinate clauses appear in the text, Aramaic terms are frequently used (1:42; 5:2; 9:7; etc.), and Old Testament quotations are closer in form to the Hebrew than to the Greek (cf. 12:40; 13:18; 19:37).1
     Nevertheless, John’s Gospel appears to have been written with a Gentile audience in mind, seeing that Jewish conventions are explained presumably for the benefit of those who were unfamiliar with them. Certain feasts are particularly identified as Jewish, i.e. "the Passover, the feast of the Jews" (6:4; 11:55), and "the Tabernacles, the feast of the Jews" (7:2). Jewish customs are noted and clarified, i.e. purification (2:6; cf. 11:55), ethnic exclusivism (4:9), and the Sabbath (19:31). Aramaic words are both transliterated and translated into Greek, i.e. Kēphas (1:42), Bēthzatha (5:2), Silōam (9:7), Gabbatha (19:13), Golgotha (19:17), and rabbouni (20:16). Palestinian geographical features are carefully described, i.e. "Bethany . . . across the Jordan" (1:28), "Cana of Galilee" (2:1, 11; 4:46; 21:2), "Aenon near Salim" (3:23), "Bethany near Jerusalem" (11:18), and "Bethsaida of Galilee" (12:21). The Sea of Galilee is identified as "the Sea of Tiberias" (6:1; 21:1), the name used in the latter part of the first century and employed in Greco-Roman texts.
     It has been suggested that something about the destination of the Fourth Gospel may be indicated by the way John the baptizer is depicted – quite different from the Synoptics. He is presented in the role of the Messiah’s forerunner and thus in a subordinate position. He is not the light but bears witness to the light (1:6-8); he is not the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet (1:20-21); he is merely the friend of the bridegroom who must decrease while the bridegroom must increase (3:28-30); and Jesus’ testimony is greater than his (5:33-34). This comparative and humbling presentation has sometimes been explained as an awareness of and/or response to a group of followers whose evaluation of John the baptist was exaggerated and misdirected. Interestingly, long after the death of the baptizer, disciples who were loyal to his teachings were reported in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-3). W. J. Harrington notes further that there were disciples of John the baptist in Ephesus as late as the third century (Explaining the Gospels 131).2
     Early and consistent testimony places the Gospel’s provenance in Asia Minor, particularly at Ephesus. The writing was reportedly at the request of area congregations as a summary of the apostle John’s teaching about the life of Jesus to meet needs that had grown up in the church near the close of the first century.3 Accordingly, the Gospel of John is best read and interpreted through the lense of late-first-century Gentile readers.
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
      1 See also Authorship of NT Gospels. Scripture quotations in English are the author’s own translation.
        2 Contra F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts 363 n. 7; Donald Guthrie, NT Introduction 279-80; et al., who dismiss the idea that the Fourth Gospel polemicizes against such a group.
        3 Sources include Clement of Alexandria (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14), the Muratorian Canon, the Anti-Marcionite Porlogue, Jerome (Comm. Matt. Prol.), Epiphanius of Salamis (Adv. Haer. 41.12), Irenaeus of Lyons (Adv. Haer. 3.1.2), and Eusebius of Caesarea (Eccl. Hist. 3.1.1; 3.24).

Related Posts: Matthew's AudienceMark's Audience, Luke's Audience

Image credit: http://www.themonastery.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Gospel-of-St-John-300x200.jpg